July 11, 2026 07:52 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
'Highway blocked, stones pelted, cops injured': BJP faces open revolt in Madhya Pradesh over Narottam Mishra ticket snub | Two Kolkata Police DCPs suspended over alleged remarks against Bengal CM Suvendu Adhikari | Bail to Bloodbath: Telangana man allegedly kills wife, kids and teen who accused him of sexual harassment | Prakash Raj gets bail in multiple voter registration case linked to 2019 polls | ED raids Shekhar Suman associate's premises in FEMA case; phone allegedly thrown from 13th floor | 'Candidate fled': Prashant Kishor jibes BJP over Bankipur nominee change | BJP replaces candidate days before high-stakes Bankipur bypoll | Foreign franchise league enters India! BBL opener to be played in Chennai, announce Modi-Albanese | 'They could have stopped me': Vijay blames police, former DMK government over Karur stampede | 'People will correct their 2025 mistake': Electoral debutant Prashant Kishor predicts BJP defeat in Bankipur
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.