July 05, 2026 05:02 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
'Why can't citizens protest against the government? They are being made slaves by slapping cases': Bombay HC slams Mumbai Police, quashes activist's externment | 'First he cheats on me...': Siya Goyal's old pub video goes viral amid probe into fiancé Ketan Agarwal's alleged murder | Ronaldo's goal, Ramos' last-gasp winner send Portugal past Croatia, set up Spain clash | India-US trade deal almost done! Piyush Goyal hints at breakthrough | Ram Mandir donation scam: Champat Rai points finger at his own driver | PM Modi welcomes Japanese PM Sanae Takaichi as India-Japan ties enter a new era | 'Not an isolated incident': India slams Pakistan after 125-year-old historic Gurdwara is demolished | Ram Mandir donation theft: Six accused were employed by Varanasi-based security firm, probe reveals | Ayodhya Ram Temple donation theft: Probe says majority of money was allegedly stolen during Kumbh Mela | Commercial LPG price slashed by Rs 183.50 from July 1; check new rates in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai
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.