Differences in Interpretation of Section 2(o) of ID Act

My friend Rohan and I are having a huge debate on this question. Rohan thinks that a shop with a turnover of ₹50,000 in a year is not a 'shop' under the ID Act 1946. He argues that under Section 2(o), only a shop having an annual turnover of ₹50,000 or more will be considered a 'shop', so if the turnover is less than that, it doesn't fall within the definition.

I say that's not true. I claim that the phrase "50,000 or more" is used in an inclusive sense, meaning any shop having an annual turnover of ₹50,000, regardless of whether it's more or less. So, a shop with ₹50,000 turnover is indeed a shop under the ID Act. Which one of us is right?