September 25, 2026 06:54 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Trouble for Gyanesh Kumar? Plea filed in Supreme Court seeking prosecution of CEC | Air India pilot suspended after failing alcohol test before Zurich-Delhi flight, weeks after marijuana case | 'Don't be selective, boycott all elections': CJP's Abhijeet Dipke's blunt message to Opposition | 'Resign by tomorrow or face nationwide protest from October 2': CJP's Abhijeet Dipke's fresh warning to Gyanesh Kumar | 'Locked' iPhone 17 at centre of mystery surrounding IIT Bombay student's death | 'Rahul Gandhi is devoid of wisdom and knowledge': BJP hits back over 'vote theft' claim | ‘How does anti-incumbency disappear?’: Rahul Gandhi targets Modi, Shah in fresh ‘vote chori’ attack, demands Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation | Opposition readies fresh impeachment push against Gyanesh Kumar over SIR report | ‘Resign in 48 hours or face nationwide agitation’: CJP’s ultimatum to Gyanesh Kumar over SIR row | IIT Bombay student’s parents begin hunger strike, demand arrest of officials
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.