August 09, 2026 07:53 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
‘A morning I will cherish’: Raghav Chadha meets PM Modi, shares photos from ‘enriching’ meeting | Delhi Mercedes crash kills 70-year-old woman: Cop’s son behind wheel, beer bottle found | Indian-origin woman accused of ‘visa fraud’ on X: US Attorney steps in with major clarification | US Senate passes Russia sanctions bill: India can face Trump’s 100% tariff threat | Expired meat, rotten vegetables found at Bengaluru's luxury hotels, legal action begins | 'I'm ready to be humiliated': Vijay, Udhayanidhi Stalin clash in Tamil Nadu Assembly over Cauvery dispute | 'They don't need Mohan Bhagwat's certificate': Priyanka Gandhi Vadra's sharp reply to RSS chief's Gen Z remark | 'Students, Gen Z, ask me anything': Rahul Gandhi launches Instagram Q&A, responds to Jharkhand protest | PM Modi goes Gen Z, urges Indians to share 'Get Ready With Me' videos on National Handloom Day | Former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal sentenced to 10-year jail term in 2013 rape case as Bombay HC overturns acquittal
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.