October 06, 2026 01:29 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
'If law wasn't followed, we can undo it': Supreme Court's big warning on SIR process amid Gyanesh Kumar row | From TMC Rajya Sabha MP to BJP nominee in 6 months: Koel Mallick's stunning political U-turn | ‘Stomp on your head’: Omani flydubai co-pilot’s chilling posts on violence against women surface | Asian Games 2026: India beat Pakistan to clinch gold in men's cricket | flydubai cockpit attack: Deleted posts expose Omani co-pilot’s views on women, alleged extremist past | flydubai cockpit horror: Omani co-pilot Hamam al-Hammami attacked Captain Smit Machchhar with crash axe, tried to seize control | flydubai temporarily suspends all Israel flights after co-pilot’s alleged cockpit attack, crash attempt | Grounded in Oman over ‘radical views’, then hired by flydubai: What we know about Omani pilot Hamam al-Hammami | ‘Hanuman Chalisa gave me courage’: Smit Machchhar recounts flydubai cockpit battle to PM Modi | PM Modi speaks to Flydubai pilot Smit Machchhar who foiled crash plot, praises his courage
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.