September 24, 2026 05:35 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
ECI breaks silence on SIR row: Poll body says all decisions were ‘unanimous’ despite differences | Gyanesh Kumar under fire: Opposition seeks CEC’s removal as SIR row explodes over report of 14 internal ECI objections | SIR row explodes: Report claims 14 objections by 2 Election Commissioners; Opposition demands CEC Gyanesh Kumar's removal | IIT Bombay professor Suryanarayana Doolla sent on leave amid Sahil Wakode death controversy: Report | Narendra Modi's Canada visit confirmed: Carney eyes trade deal by year-end | 'When we win, we're tearing this down': MAGA activist's threat to 90-foot Hanuman statue in US sparks backlash | Delhi women's safety under spotlight: 17-year-old allegedly gang-raped near Kalkaji Mandir in fourth such incident in 10 days | India gets fresh push for permanent UNSC seat as 4 European nations back bid | IIT Bombay professor gets faculty backing after student death controversy; protests intensify over suspension | IIT Bombay protests erupt after student’s death; authorities meet students over 18 demands
Income Tax
Vijay faces setback in IT case. Photo: Vijay/Facebook

Court snub for Vijay: Madras HC rejects plea in ₹1.5 crore tax case

| @indiablooms | Feb 06, 2026, at 12:04 pm

Chennai/IBNS: The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed actor-turned-politician Vijay’s plea challenging a ₹1.5 crore penalty imposed by the Income Tax department for alleged concealment of income for the assessment year 2015–16, media reports said.

Vijay had challenged the penalty, claiming he had declared an income of ₹35.42 crore for the financial year 2016–17.

Contradicting his claim, the Income Tax department, which conducted raids in 2015, alleged that the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) chief failed to disclose ₹15 crore earned from the film Puli.

Following the penalty order issued on June 30, 2022, Vijay moved the High Court and secured an interim stay on August 16, 2022, from a single-judge bench.

He argued that the penalty should have been imposed by June 30, 2019, and contended that the order was liable to be set aside as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limit.

The Income Tax department, however, sought dismissal of the plea, asserting that the penalty was imposed in accordance with provisions of the IT Act.

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.