Aishwarya Rai Bachchan

For assessment year 2018-19, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan withdrew her own appeal before the ITAT in December 2025. In related proceedings concerning the same year, Revenue's appeal was subsequently dismissed in March 2026.

State of the evidence

Primary ITAT orders documented

Legal status — source text

Personal appeal withdrawn in December 2025; Revenue's appeal subsequently dismissed in March 2026

Attribution

No culpability; tax litigation with a final favourable outcome concerning the tax authority's appeal

The Mumbai ITAT allowed Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's appeal concerning assessment year 2020-21 and ordered the deletion of an interest disallowance of approximately 1.495 crore rupees and 2 lakh in forecasting expenses.

State of the evidence

Primary ITAT order documented

Legal status — source text

Aishwarya Rai's appeal allowed by the ITAT on 18 March 2026

Attribution

No culpability; decision in the taxpayer's favour

In a dispute concerning assessment year 2022-23, the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the tax authority's appeal against Aishwarya Rai Bachchan.

State of the evidence

Primary ITAT order documented

Legal status — source text

Revenue's appeal dismissed by the ITAT on 31 October 2025

Attribution

No culpability; taxpayer party to tax litigation decided in her favour

The Sinnar administration in Nashik district sent Aishwarya Rai a notice concerning 21 960 rupees in unpaid non-agricultural land tax on a property. Her adviser stated that payment would be made promptly.

State of the evidence

Administrative notice and representative's response documented

Legal status — source text

Recovery notice; no criminal proceedings

Attribution

Personal responsibility as property owner for a tax amount claimed

The Panama Papers linked Aishwarya Rai and her family to Amic Partners, a British Virgin Islands company. In December 2021, the Enforcement Directorate questioned her about these connections, her travel and transfers of foreign funds.

State of the evidence

Leaked documents and official questioning documented

Legal status — source text

FEMA investigation; no personal conviction established in the verified sources

Attribution

Personal involvement limited to the structures and matters about which she was questioned

A print advertisement depicting Aishwarya Rai with a Black child holding a parasol was condemned as racist and evocative of slavery or child servitude. Kalyan Jewellers withdrew the advertisement.

State of the evidence

Advertisement, public criticism, actress's response and withdrawal documented

Legal status — source text

No legal proceedings identified

Attribution

Responsibility limited to her appearance as brand ambassador; visual composition attributed to the brand's campaign

Production of Heroine was halted following the announcement of Aishwarya Rai's pregnancy. Director Madhur Bhandarkar publicly accused her of concealing her pregnancy and explained that he would not have begun filming had he known about it. The actress subsequently left the project.

State of the evidence

Production halt, public allegations and actress's formal response documented

Legal status — source text

No conviction; contractual and reputational dispute

Attribution

Personal responsibility alleged by the director, disputed by her representatives

Aishwarya Rai was questioned about a parcel from the Netherlands containing, among other things, 23 000 euros. She stated that she did not know the sender's identity. Customs authorities gave her a "clean chit" at that stage, before a separate Enforcement Directorate investigation was announced into possible FEMA/PMLA violations.

State of the evidence

Questioning, favourable customs decision and opening of an ED investigation documented

Legal status — source text

Customs authorities gave her a clean chit at that stage; the ED subsequently opened an investigation; no conviction found

Attribution

Personal involvement linked to a parcel received at her address; no established offence

A criminal complaint was filed before a court in Indore against Aishwarya Rai and Hrithik Roshan, notably under Sections 292 and 509 of the IPC, alleging that their kissing scene in Dhoom 2 was obscene and offensive.

State of the evidence

Filing of a criminal complaint documented

Legal status — source text

Complaint filed; no personal conviction found in the verified sources

Attribution

Personal allegation linked to a scene performed in the film