first item in dispute is with regard to estimate of income from lorries AAV 6291, AAG 157 and AAV 5265. In respect of AAV 5265 which was plied for 10 months, assessee had shown income at Rs. 11,000 which was estimated at Rs. 30,000 by ITO but was reduced to Rs. 25,000 by AAC. In respect of AAV 6291 which was plied for full year assessee had shown income of Rs. 11,000 against which ITO estimated it at Rs. 36,000 which was reduced to Rs. 30,000 by AAC. In respect of AAG 157 which was run for 8 months assessee had shown income at Rs. 7,000 against which ITO estimated it at Rs. 10,000 which was reduced to Rs. 8,000 by AAC. Against same assessee has preferred this appeal. ld. counsel for assessee referred to order of Tribunal for earlier year where income from AAV 5265 was estimated at Rs. 21,000 for full year and income from AAV 6291 was estimated at Rs. 31,000 for full year and income of AAG 157 for 4 months was estimated at Rs. 6,000. He urged that income in this year would be owner than in earlier year as lorries had become older. He submitted that on basis of Tribunal s order income determined should be reduced. ld. Departmental Representative justified income estimated by AAC. We have considered rival submissions. Taking into account income estimated by Tribunal for asst. yr. 1980-81 in its order dt. 26th Nov., 1984 in ITA No. 310/Hyd/1984 in assessee s case we estimated income from lorry AAV 5265 at Rs. 18,000. But in respect of lorry AAV 6291 and AAG 157 we do not find any ground to interfere with income estimated by AAC at Rs. 30,000 and 8,000 respectively which is in confirmation with order of Tribunal. next ground is with regard to computation of profit under s. 41(2). assessee sold lorry AAV 5265 for Rs. 31,200. Its written down value was Rs. 12,965. Prior to sale vehicle was involved in accident and assessee had spent Rs. 13,500 for repairs. On account of that expenditure assessee received from insurance company sum of Rs. 14,949. While calculating profit under s. 41(2) ITO added additions made by assessee to WDV and deducted therefrom compensation paid by insurance company. Then he arrived at profit of Rs. 19,684 under s. 41(2) as against Rs. 4,235 admitted by assessee. On appeal, AAC upheld same. ld. counsel for assessee kly urged that sum of Rs. 14,949 received from Insurance Co. cannot be taken into account while computing profit under s. 41(2). Thus he urged that profit returned by assessee under s. 41(2) at Rs. 4,235 was correct. ld. Departmental Representative submitted that insurance amount of Rs. 14,949 has been rightly taken for computing profit under s. 41(2). In this connection he relied on Commentary on "Law of Income-tax" by Sampath Iyengar, 7th Edition at page 2071. We have considered rival submissions. Sec. 41(2) reads as under: "Where any building, machinery, plant or furniture which is owned by assessee and which was or has been used for purposes of business or profession sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed and moneys payable in respect of such building, machinery, plant or furniture, as case may be, together with amount of scrap value, if any, exceeds written down value, so much of excess as does not exceed difference between actual cost and written down value shall be chargeable to income-tax as income of business or profession of previous year in which money payable for building, machinery, plant or furniture became due." Under above provision, if sale value exceeds written down value so much of excess as does not exceed difference between actual cost and written down value shall be chargeable to income-tax as income of business or profession of previous year in which money payable became due. clear reading of above provision indicates that insurance amount received in respect of expenditure incurred by assessee for damage of lorry on account of expenditure cannot be taken into consideration in computing profit under s. 41(2). observations at page 2071 Sampath Iyengar on "Law of Income-tax" relied on by ld. Departmental Representative would apply only to cases of discard, demolition or destruction of depreciable asset but not to case of sale of depreciable asset. We restore this matter to file of ITO to work out computation of profit under s. 41(2) as indicated in above provision without taking into account amount received from insurance company. In result, appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. *** SMT. B.B. SWARAJYALAKSHMI v. INCOME TAX OFFICER