Held that  section 80JJAA makes it clear that the term “workman” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (s) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In terms of section 2(s) of the 1947 Act, the definition of a workman is very wide inasmuch as the said definition would cover any person who has the technical knowledge, self skilled in an industry. A software engineer would come within the purview and ambit of workman under section 2(s) of the 1947 Act so long as such person does not take a supervisory role. A software engineer per se would be a workman; a software engineer rendering supervisory work would not be a workman.  Court also held that what is required is for a person to be employed for a period of 300 days continuously. There is no such criteria made out for a person to be employed in any particular year or otherwise. The amendment of section 80JJAA is more an explanatory amendment or a clarificatory amendment which clarifies the methodology of applying section 80JJAA. The period of 300 days as mentioned under section 80JJAA of the Act could be taken into consideration both in the previous year and the succeeding year for the purpose of availing of the benefit under section 80JJAA. It is not required that the workman works for entire 300 days in the previous year. A benevolent provision has to be read liberally and reasonably and if there is an ambiguity, in favour of the assessee. It is required for the Assessing Officer, Commissioner, Tribunal as also any other officer to always interpret and/or apply the provisions of the Act, taking into consideration the intent and purport of the provisions. An intention to encourage the assessee to employ more and more people.  Followed Devinder Singh v. Municipal  Council (2011) 6 SCC 584. (AY. 2008-09)