August 14, 2026 02:42 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Netaji row: Suvendu Adhikari govt strips BJP MP Anant Maharaj of state honour | Sukhbir Badal attacked by Nihang Sikh with kirpan at Maharashtra gurdwara; assailant detained | ‘If you cannot do it, we will pass an order’: Supreme Court’s final warning to Centre on food labels | ‘Time to move on’: Bombay HC sends strong message in Vijay Mallya-bank dispute | Netaji row explodes in Bengal: Suvendu Adhikari orders police action over ‘derogatory’ posts | Kolkata's NRS Hospital nurse found dead in washroom during night shift | RG Kar rape-murder case takes fresh turn as ex-TMC MLA Nirmal Ghosh arrested over cremation probe | ‘Govt has nothing to hide’: Amit Shah says ‘ready for debate’ on NEET crackdown; Rahul Gandhi hits back, ‘not interested in lecture’ | Tata Sons leadership shock: N Chandrasekaran won’t seek reappointment as chairman after February 2027 | ISI-linked Pakistani national arrested in Bengal over 'espionage' targeting Army, BSF, Railways
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.