Actor Vijay appealed before the Madras High Court against a Rs 1.5 crore income tax penalty upheld earlier. The Division Bench is yet to list the matter, following dismissal of his plea by a single judge confirming the penalty’s validity.
CHENNAI: Actor and politician Vijay has filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, challenging a recent single-judge ruling that upheld a Rs 1.5 crore income tax penalty imposed on him.
Although the appeal was submitted in March 2026, it has not yet been taken up for listing.
The appeal follows a single-judge judgment by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, who dismissed Vijay’s petition. The judge held that the Income Tax Department’s penalty order was passed within the time limit set under the Income Tax Act.
The dispute stems from Vijay’s assessment for the financial year 2015–16 (assessment year 2016–17), which followed an Income Tax Department search conducted on September 30, 2015.
During the search, Vijay reportedly made a sworn statement admitting receipt of Rs 15 crore in cash as remuneration, along with an additional Rs 16 crore received through banking channels. The admitted cash amount was later reflected in his tax return as undisclosed income.
In the assessment, the authorities also examined an expenditure claim titled “Release & Rasigar Mandram Expenses,” under which Vijay stated he incurred Rs 2.92 crore. According to his authorised representative, Rs 2 crore was paid directly by the film’s producer to fan club members in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, while Rs 92.44 lakh was paid in cash by Vijay.
The Assessing Officer rejected the Rs 2 crore portion for lack of supporting evidence and allowed only part of the cash expenditure. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted partial relief, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal later allowed 50% of the total claimed expenses.
ALSO READ: Karur Stampede Case: CBI Questions TVK Chief Vijay Ahead of Tamil Nadu Elections
In addition, penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271AAB, which provides for penalties in search-related cases. The department imposed a penalty of Rs 1.5 crore, calculated as 10% of the Rs 15 crore undisclosed income admitted during the search.
Before the single judge, Vijay restricted his challenge to the question of limitation. He argued that the penalty order dated June 30, 2022 was barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c), which prescribes a shorter period of six months for “any other case.”
The single judge rejected Vijay’s argument and sustained the penalty order.
The Court observed that the ITAT order was delivered on December 22, 2021, and that the six-month limitation period ended on June 30, 2022 coinciding with the date on which the penalty order was passed. It concluded that the penalty order was within time and found no reason to interfere.
Vijay has now taken the matter to the Division Bench.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE