Published Feb 06, 2026 | 11:42 AM ⚊ Updated Feb 06, 2026 | 11:42 AM
Actor Vijay
Synopsis: The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by actor-turned-politician Vijay, challenging a ₹1.50 crore penalty imposed on him by the Income Tax Department for alleged concealment of income. The penalty was levied after the Income Tax Department concluded that Vijay had failed to disclose ₹15 crore received as remuneration for his role in the 2015 film Puli.
The Madras High Court on Friday, 6 February, dismissed a petition filed by actor-turned-politician Vijay, the president of Tamilaga Vetttri Kazhagam (TVK), challenging a ₹1.50 crore penalty imposed on him by the Income Tax Department for alleged concealment of income.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the penalty had been imposed in accordance with the rules and found no grounds to interfere with the tax authorities’ decision.
However, the court granted Vijay the liberty to approach the appellate tribunal to pursue further remedies.
The penalty was levied after the Income Tax Department concluded that Vijay had failed to disclose ₹15 crore received as remuneration for his role in the 2015 film Puli.
According to the tax authorities, nearly ₹5 crore of Vijay’s remuneration was allegedly paid in cash and not voluntarily disclosed in his returns.
The department thereafter initiated penalty proceedings under the Income Tax Act, in an order dated 30 June 2022, imposing a penalty of ₹1.5 crore.
Contesting the penalty, Vijay had moved the Madras High Court, arguing that the action was unjustified.
According to Bar and Bench, his counsel argued that the penalty order was barred by limitation. He contended that the statutory deadline for imposing the penalty expired on 30 June 2019, and that the order passed three years later was legally unsustainable.
The Income Tax Department maintained that there was no procedural or statutory violation.
It submitted to the court that the timelines had been computed based on the assessment proceedings and the 2015 raids, and that the penalty was imposed strictly in accordance with law.
After the hearing was completed, the court had reserved its verdict.
(With inputs from Subash Chandra Bose.)
