Loss of profit is a well-known and widely used damage that with its three important characteristics namely uncertainty, specific (indirect) and subjective damage, has created difficulties in the proving and calculating phase of proceeding. These features have led courts and arbitration tribunals while accepting the principle of compensability of this damage exercising great rigor, caution, and precision in the phase of evaluating evidence and calculating the amount of damage. This great caution and precision can be observed in all three characteristics. Considering that this damage is usually classified as indirect damages which must be explicitly claimed by the injured party and its extent must be proven with the most reliable evidence available to him/her, any dis-cooperation in this regard provides a suitable ground for applying the rule of "adverse inference." Also, considering that lost profit doesnot have the traditional criterion of certainty (absolute certainty) and in order tobe considered compensable, the criterion of reasonable certainty is used as the basis for establishing the requirement of certainty, it has created difficulties for the courts in practice regarding what factors mustbe taken into account to determine that it has been reasonably proven and evaluated. The presence of the subjective characteristic of this damage has also caused courts to refrain from issuing judgments based on assumptions and the like and carefully examine how much damage this specific victim has suffered given the circumstances, regardless of how much damage individuals in the victim's position typically suffer. The analysis of the present judgement (regardless of the discussion on whether or not it is compensable in Iranian law, which has been extensively examined by writers and also with assuming the acceptance of its compensability with any interpretation) provides an opportunity to explore and critique the degree of caution and precision of Iranian courts in assessing lostprofit.