October 16, 2026 07:26 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
'How dare Elon Musk?' Owaisi defends Modi after billionaire's 'real boss' jibe at Ambani | 'B****y S***': IAS officer's abuse of female colleague during virtual J&K meeting sparks row | Aamir Khan’s nephew Imran Khan asked to leave India by Oct 28 after joining anti-CEC protest | ‘Their crime? Demanding justice’: Rahul Gandhi slams 4 AM detention of Ankita Bhandari’s parents | ‘Bangladesh showed us the way’: Neha Bora’s remarks spark BJP attack on Rahul Gandhi | Chingrighata flyover skid scare: Bikes fall, anti-skid blocks installed overnight as Bengal Minister Agnimitra Paul faces criticism | Meerut blue drum murder case: Muskaan, her lover get death sentence | 'Rise up, young patriots!': American singer Mary Millben alleges CJP gets US funding, urges peaceful protests | 'Won't go unchallenged': Muhammad Yunus heckling in New York triggers legal action warning | flydubai cockpit attack probe widens: Two Maldivian pilots detained in UAE over links to Omani co-pilot
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.