October 12, 2026 05:16 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Delhi Police de-notifies Jantar Mantar as protest site amid CJP stir over Gyanesh Kumar | 'Gyanesh Kumar will not escape': Rahul Gandhi issues warning amid voting rights row | 'Supreme Court doors open for all': CJI Surya Kant breaks silence on refusing to meet INDIA bloc over Gyanesh Kumar row | 'Undeclared Emer-GenZ': Shashi Tharoor slams Delhi curbs over CJP protests, calls internet shutdown 'most regressive' | ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’, ‘Inquilab Zindabad’: CJP leader Abhijeet Dipke dares Delhi Police to arrest him, says ‘We are not afraid’ | CJP protest crackdown? Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka detained from inside flight | Dhruv Rathee detained ahead of CJP protests against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as Delhi goes on high alert | ‘Restriction, not complete closure’: Supreme Court questions Delhi shutdown ahead of CJP protest | 'Unwarranted': India hits back at JD Vance over ‘indentured servants’ remark amid US Green Card crackdown | US targets Microsoft, Infosys, Tata in green card crackdown
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.