first common point in all these years is with regard to relief under section 80J of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). assessee claimed that new industrial undertaking has come into existence on account of major expansion undertaken during previous year relevant to assessment year 1976-77. According to assessee, licensed capacity increased from 5,000 tons to 6,250 tons per annum. assessee has installed new furnace, new transformer and some new motors. On these facts, it was urged that new industrial undertaking has come into existence and assessee is entitled for section 80J relief. ITO disallowed claim. He held that no new industrial undertaking at all has come into existence to enable assessee to claim section 80J relief. It is only old assets which are employed as capital. new undertaking must be new and identifiable undertaking separate and distinct from existing business and this test has not been satisfied in assessee's case. All that has been done is that only new transformer and furnace have been put to use and in this process production capacity has increased. It is same old steel wire and rods which is continued to be manufactured and nothing new or distinct which existing business has been manufacturing. There is no new and identifiable undertaking, separate and distinct from existing business. There was just addition of new machinery and buildings to existing unit and nothing more. Thus, it is only expansion of already existing business or reconstruction of unit already in existence as distinct from independent new business or new line of manufacture with new buildings, machinery or plant, etc. Simply because there are additions to existing machinery, i.e., installing transformer and furnace at higher cost, assessee will not be entitled to claim relief under section 80J. Thus, he disallowed claim of assessee. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld disallowance. 2. learned counsel for assessee kly urged that lower authorities were wrong in holding that it is mere reconstruction of existing business. licensed capacity has increased and production has doubled. Thus, there was major expansion. Thus, new industrial undertaking has come into existence. assessee is entitled for relief under section 80J. learned departmental representative submitted that no new industrial undertaking has come into existence and it is only reconstruction of existing business. Thus, assessee is not entitled for relief under section 80J. 3. We have considered rival submissions. In our view, no new industrial undertaking has come into existence. All that assessee has done is that new transformer, furnace and motor were installed on account of which production capacity has increased. It is in same old building they have been installed. It is same old steel wire and rods which has been manufactured. No separate and distinct identifiable industrial undertaking has come into existence. It is only reconstruction of existing business. Thus, no new industrial undertaking has come into existence. In Textile Machinery Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195 Supreme Court held that test should be whether it is all same new and identifiable undertaking separate and distinct from existing business. It was observed as under: " Again, new undertaking must not be substantially same old existing business. third excluded category mentioned above is significant. Even if new business is carried on but by piercing veil of new business it is found that there is employment of assets of old business, benefit will not be available. From this it clearly follows that substantial investment of new capital is imperative. words 'the capital employed' in principal clause of section 15C are significant, for fresh capital must be employed in new undertaking claiming exemption. There must be new undertaking where substantial investment of fresh capital must be made in order to enable earning of profits attributable to that new capital. assessee continues to be same for purpose of assessment. It has its existing business already liable to tax. It produced in two concerned undertakings commodities different from those which it has been manufacturing o r producing in its existing business. Manufacture or production of articles yielding additional profit attributable to new outlay of capital in separate and distinct unit is heart of matter, to earn benefit from exemption of tax liability under section 15C. Sub-section (6) of section also points to same effect, namely, production of articles. answer, in every particular case, depends upon peculiar facts and conditions of new industrial undertaking on account of which assessee claims exemption under section 15C. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. Trade and industry do not run in earmarked channels and particularly so in view of manifold scientific and technological developments. There is great scope for expansion of trade and industry. fact that assessee by establishment of new industrial undertaking expands his existing business, which he certainly does, would not, on that score deprive him of benefit under section 15C. Every new creation in business is some kind of expansion and advancement. true test is not whether new industrial undertaking connotes expansion of existing business of assessee but whether it is all same new and identifiable undertaking separate and distinct from existing business. No particular decision in one case can lay down inexorable test to determine whether given case comes under section 15C or not. In order that new undertaking can be said to be not formed out of already existing business, there must be new emergence of physically separate industrial unit which may exist on its own as viable unit. undertaking is formed out of existing business if physical identity with old unit is preserved. This has not happened here in case of two undertakings which are separate and distinct. " Again it was observed as under: " . . . One thing is certain that new undertaking must be integrated unit by itself wherein articles are produced and at least minimum of ten persons with aid of power and minimum of twenty persons without aid of power have been employed. Such new industrially recognisable unit of assessee cannot be said to be reconstruction of his old business since there is no transfer of any assets of old business to new undertaking which takes place when there is reconstruction of old business. For purpose of section 15C industrial units set up must be new in sense that new plants and machinery are erected for producing either same commodities or some distinct commodities. In order to deny benefit of section 15C new undertaking must be formed by reconstruction of old business. Now, in instant case, there is no formation of any industrial undertaking out of instant case, there is no formation of any industrial undertaking out of existing business since that can take place only when assets of old business are transferred substantially to new undertaking. There is no such transfer of assets in two cases with which we are concerned. " It is clear from above decision that test to be applied is whether it is new and identifiable undertaking separate and distinct from existing business. Applying above test to facts of instant case, we hold that new and identifiable undertaking separate and distinct from existing business has not come into existence. All that assessee has done is to instal new transformer, furnace and motor in same old existing business and, thus, no new identifiable undertaking distinct from existing business has come into existence. Thus, assessee is not entitled for relief under section 80J. Thus, we uphold orders of lower authorities in disallowing claim of assessee made under section 80J. 4. next ground that arises in appeal for assessment year 1976- 7 7 is against disallowance of initial depreciation on electrical fittings and water tank. assessee claimed that electrical fittings and water tank should be considered as machinery and initial depreciation should be allowed. lower authorities have disallowed claim. We have heard parties. In our view, assessee is entitled for initial depreciation on electrical fittings and water tank. electrical fittings and water tank fall within definition of 'plant'. Hence, assessee is entitled for initial depreciation. 5. In CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44 Supreme Court held that sanitary and pipeline fittings fell within definition of 'plant' in section 10(5) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ('the 1922 Act') and assessee was entitled to development rebate. In CIT v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 15 Andhra Pradesh High Court held that definition of 'plant' in section 43(3) of Act is inclusive definition and is of wide amplitude so as to take in even well dug for purpose of carrying on business of assessee and, hence, assessee is entitled to depreciation and development rebate on cost of digging well. This decision was again followed by same Court in CIT v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 68 (AP). In CIT v. Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. [1979] 116 ITR 404 Bombay High Court held that fencing round refinery processing units constituted 'plant' so as to be entitled to depreciation and development rebate. In Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 114 Calcutta High Court held that water storage tank would be entitled for depreciation as plant and machinery. In above decisions it is held that sanitary and pipeline fittings, wire fencing, water storage tank and well are to be treated as plant. above ratio squarely applies to instant case. We hold that electrical fittings and water tank have to be treated as plant and assessee is entitled for initial depreciation with respect to them. We direct ITO to allow same. 6. next ground that arises for consideration in appeal for assessment year 1976-77 is with regard to development rebate claimed at 25 per cent of value of machinery installed during this year but allowed at 15 per cent by lower authorities. assessee produces wire rods. assessee's case is that it falls within ambit of item 1 of Fifth Schedule of Act, which reads as under: (1) Iron and steel (metal), ferro alloys and special steels. ITO disallowed claim on ground that assessee produces only iron rods and not iron and steel as such. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld same. 7. learned counsel for assessee submitted that even wire rods produced by assessee come within ambit of item 1 of Fifth Schedule and so, assessee is entitled for development rebate on value of machinery installed during this year. He placed reliance on order of this Bench of Tribunal in IT Appeal No. 574 (Bang.) of 980, dated 6-2-1982. learned departmental representative submitted that assessee only produces iron rods but not iron and steel as such. Hence, assessee is not entitled for development rebate. 8. We have considered rival submissions. In CIT v. West India Steel Co. Ltd. [1977] 108 ITR 601 (Ker.) (FB) item 1 of Fifth Schedule came up for consideration. It was held therein that M.S. rods and steel sections are basically 'iron and steel (metal)' within meaning of item II of Fifth Schedule and assessee was entitled to higher rate of development rebate. This decision was followed by Madras High Court in Addl. CIT v. Trichy, Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 39. Similar view was taken by Allahabad High Court in Singh Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 891 and also by Punjab High Court in CIT v. Krishna Copper & Steel Rolling Mills [1979] 119 ITR 256. contrary view has been taken by Calcutta High Court in Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 802. We prefer to follow with respect decisions of Kerala, Allahabad and Punjab High Courts in preference to decision of Calcutta High Court. This Bench of Tribunal in its order in case of ITO v. Jindal Aluminium Ltd. (IT Appeal No. 574 (Bang.) of 1980, dated 6-2-1982] has taken similar view following above majority decisions of High Courts. In view of above decisions, we hold that wire rods manufactured by assessee come within item 1 of Fifth Schedule and assessee is entitled for development rebate at 25 per cent. Accordingly, we direct ITO to allow. 9. Ground No. 2 raised in appeal for year 1976-77 is not pressed and is, accordingly, rejected. In appeal for year 1977-78, another ground is against disallowance of weighted deduction under section 35B of Act. T h e weighted deduction on expenditure relating to freight and forwarding charges, packing and loading has been rightly disallowed in view of decision of Karnataka High Court in Ullal Narayan Mallya & Sons [1975] 1 KLJ 487 and decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in J.H. & Co. v. Second ITO [1982] 1 SOT 150 (Bom.). Thus, we uphold disallowance on these items. T h e weighted deduction in respect of bank charges has also been rightly disallowed. assessee claimed weighted deduction in respect of commission paid for procuring sales. This was disallowed on ground that it is not commission paid to any foreign agent with reference to export sales made but to Indian parties. In our view, claim has been rightly disallowed. assessee has not placed any evidence to prove that commission has been paid to Indian parties who furnished information about foreign buyers and it is they who brought them together for concluding sales. Thus, claim has been rightly disallowed. 10. In result, appeal for year 1976-77 is partly allowed and appeals for years 1977-78 and 1978-79 are dismissed. *** CANARA WIRE & WIRE PRODUCTS LTD. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER