IT Dept Reopens Probe into Kalaignar TV’s Rs. 200 Crore Receipt in 2G Spectrum Scam

An 18-year-old case related to the 2G spectrum scam has resurfaced, with the Income Tax (I-T) Department reopening its investigation into a Rs. 200 crore payment received by Kalaignar TV Private Limited during the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11.

The Madras High Court has now asked the I-T department’s senior standing counsel, A.P. Srinivas, to file a response to a petition by the TV channel. The petition challenges a summons issued on August 12, 2025, asking the company to provide evidence and account books.

In court, the TV channel said it had filed tax returns showing losses of Rs. 3.59 crore and Rs. 6.39 crore for the two years in question. However, the I-T officer rejected these returns and, after completing the assessments in March 2013, calculated the company’s income as Rs 21.41 crore for 2009-10 and Rs. 177.27 crore for 2010-11. These assessment orders were later confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in 2015.

When the company appealed again, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the earlier assessments in December 2016 and asked the tax officer to reconsider the case from scratch. In 2017, the department reopened the investigation and asked Kalaignar TV to submit documents.

The department also issued a show-cause notice, questioning why the Rs. 200 crore received from Cineyug Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. shouldn’t be treated as undisclosed income. This was based on a chargesheet filed by the CBI in the 2G spectrum case.

Kalaignar TV argued that the transactions were genuine and highlighted that a Delhi court had acquitted all the accused in the 2G case. Despite this, the tax officer confirmed the proposed additions in December 2017.

The channel then launched a fresh legal battle against that decision. While the appeal has been pending for the past eight years, Kalaignar TV complained that the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation) suddenly began another inquiry in June 2025.

Questioning whether the officer had the legal authority to do this, the channel filed the current petition, challenging both the June 11, 2025 notice and the August 12, 2025 summons.