Akshaya Tritiya 2025: Check offer, discounts from MP Jewellers, PC Chandra, Senco Gold, Tanishq — details here
MCX gold prices tumbled ₹ 394 per 10 grams at 9 am on April 30, with price at ₹ 95,198/10 gm, as per data on the official website; and MCX Silver prices also crashed by ₹ 728/kg, to ₹ 96,134/kg. Further, 24-carat gold cost ₹ 95,400/10 gm, according to data on the Indian Bullion Association (IBA), while 22-carat gold is priced at ₹ 87,450/10 gms, and Silver is at ₹ 97,260/kg.
Many believe that any new start on Akshaya Tritiya, also known as Akti and Akha Teej, will be prosperous and successful, and thus buy gold. Thus, on the occasion, jewellers are offering discounts to lure customers despite soaring prices.
Gold is not cheap for the retail customer. On top of the metal price, jewellers will also take making charges for any pieces, and the final bill will also include goods and services tax (GST). This is 3 per cent (comprising 1.5 per cent CGST and SGST each), which means, for gold worth ₹ 1 lakh you will shell out ₹ 3,000 towards GST.
Jewellery brands such as PC Chandra and Tanishq have announced discounts for customers buying gold, silver and diamond jewellery on Akshaya Tritiya 2025. We take a look: Anjali Jewellers is offering discounts on making charges. Director Annargha Uuttiya Chowdhury told PTI that they expect 'very good' sales, as 'consumer confidence in gold is at an all-time high'.
MP Jewellers has offered a ₹ 300 per gram discount on gold jewellery and a 10 per cent reduction in making charges.
300 per gram discount on gold jewellery and a 10 per cent reduction in making charges. PC Chandra Jewellers has declared a ₹ 200 per gram discount on gold rates, 15 per cent off on making charges, and a 10 per cent value discount on diamond purchases.
200 per gram discount on gold rates, 15 per cent off on making charges, and a 10 per cent value discount on diamond purchases. Tanishq is offering up to 20 per cent discount on making charges for gold.
Senco Gold has announced a flat ₹ 350 discount on gold rates along with up to 30 per cent off on making charges. MD and CEO Suvankar Sen said that despite high prices, the 'auspicious buying sentiment is expected to stay firm'.
Further, in a release, Jio Financial Services said it has launched the 'Jio Gold 24K Days' from April 29 to May 5, with offers for purchase of digital gold through its JioFinance and MyJio apps. 1 per cent free gold on purchases between ₹ 1,000– ₹ 9,999 with code: JIOGOLD1
1,000– 9,999 with code: JIOGOLD1 2 per cent free gold on purchases of ₹ 10,000 and above with code: JIOGOLDAT100
10,000 and above with code: JIOGOLDAT100 The offers are valid for up to 10 transactions per user; with maximum free gold capped at ₹ 21,000.
21,000. The bonus gold will be credited within 72 hours for lump sum purchases only (not SIPs). Akshaya Tritiya Gold Purchase Timings — 5.31 pm on April 29 to 5.41 am on April 30 (duration: 12.11 hours).
Auspicious Choghadiya timings overlapping Akshaya Tritiya — Evening Muhurat (Labha) — 8.16 pm to 21.37 pm; and Night Muhurat (Shubha, Amrita, Chara) — 22.57 pm to 3 am on April 30.
On April 30: Akshaya Tritiya Gold Purchase Timings — 05.41 am to 12.18 pm (duration: 8.30 hours).
Auspicious Choghadiya timings overlapping Akshaya Tritiya — Morning Muhurat (Shubha) — 10.39 am to 12.18 pm; and Morning Muhurat (Labha, Amrita) — 5.41 am to 9 am.
Key Takeaways Gold prices have decreased ahead of Akshaya Tritiya, making it a favorable time to purchase.
Jewellers are providing discounts on gold, silver, and diamond jewellery for the occasion.
Additional costs, such as making charges and GST, should be factored into the total price.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
15 minutes ago
- Economic Times
How Trump's data war risks creating false calm
Political pressure on government statisticians and private forecasters risks sending markets down a rabbit-hole, which could suppress volatility today but lead to seismic reality checks in the future. U.S. President Donald Trump has side-swiped both private and public sector economists this month, firing the Bureau of Labor Statistics boss for what he described as "rigged" jobs data and then lambasting Goldman Sachs for tariff-related research he didn't agree with. These moves seem alarming, even if there are some mitigating factors. Trump is hardly the first person to criticize BLS payrolls data. It has been under scrutiny for years, not because of fears of bias, but because of low survey response rates and delays, which have often resulted in large changes to past data. The most recent report contained one of the biggest downward revisions in decades. The BLS can argue that it has suffered from years of underfunding, but it's still not a good look. What's more, similar questions about data collection have been lobbed at the BLS regarding its compilation of monthly consumer and producer price reports, which are critical now in assessing the impact of Trump's tariff rises on inflation. These statistics, along with the U.S. employment report, are the most important monthly updates for financial markets, mainly because they play a pivotal role in Federal Reserve thinking, given its dual mandate to maintain maximum employment and stable prices. Trump this week appointed Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni - a contributor to the controversial Project 2025 wishlist of policies for a second Trump term - to run the BLS. Antoni recently suggested suspending the monthly payrolls report until data problems were fixed, which could result in long data gaps at a critical moment for the U.S. economy, monetary policy and markets. Importantly though, the White House and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have pushed back on that idea. But then came Tuesday's attack on Goldman boss David Solomon, with calls for him to appoint a new chief economist following the release of a report on Sunday by his colleague Jan Hatzius. The report estimated U.S. consumers had so far borne less than a quarter of the cost of tariffs but could see that rise to two-thirds over time. This may simply be nothing more than Trump complaining about a forecast he doesn't like, but it's still a move that risks tinkering with one of the most basic market tenets: the plurality of views. FANTASY CALM? There's an obvious concern that - intentionally or not - these public attacks could cause economic data, research and forecasts to become more pro-government or lead to self-censorship by those keen to avoid seeing their business or careers damaged by presidential opprobrium. To its credit, Goldman said it would keep doing its job regardless of the political pressure. But it would hardly say otherwise. Perhaps more telling was the lack of public outcry from other economists who might reasonably be concerned that Trump's attacks on unflattering forecasts represent a worrying trend for their profession and market transparency overall. Of course, they or their institutions may simply have thought it best to stay quiet, assuming the issue would blow over soon. Does any of this matter long term? To be sure, economic forecasting can hardly be held up as a sacred cow if accuracy is what matters. A University of California, Berkeley study late last year looked at more than 16,000 forecasts by banks and large firms and concluded that while 53% of forecasters were confident in their predictions, they were correct only 23% of the time. But economists' forecasts still play a role, accurate or not. So any type of bias, even unintentional, could have a significant impact on market thinking. Of course, if there were a consensus that official data was likely to be biased to flatter the government, then the process of forecasting those official numbers may just be to mechanically move in that direction. But that would undoubtedly create confusion. To better capture what's really going on, investors may be more inclined to commission private economic data. And yet the cost of doing that on a frequent basis would be prohibitive for smaller players, meaning big information gaps could open up, making markets less efficient overall. If political bias in official data and forecasting were to emerge in the current environment, one might expect to see firmer job creation and softer inflation readouts. That could keep markets calm in the short term. But any weakness in the real economy would emerge eventually, likely resulting in a rude awakening for many, no matter what the official data says. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters
Mint
15 minutes ago
- Mint
Trumps data war risks creating false calm: Mike Dolan
LONDON, - Political pressure on government statisticians and private forecasters risks sending markets down a rabbit-hole, which could suppress volatility today but lead to seismic reality checks in the future. U.S. President Donald Trump has side-swiped both private and public sector economists this month, firing the Bureau of Labor Statistics boss for what he described as "rigged" jobs data and then lambasting Goldman Sachs for tariff-related research he didn't agree with. These moves seem alarming, even if there are some mitigating factors. Trump is hardly the first person to criticize BLS payrolls data. It has been under scrutiny for years, not because of fears of bias, but because of low survey response rates and delays, which have often resulted in large changes to past data. The most recent report contained one of the biggest downward revisions in decades. The BLS can argue that it has suffered from years of underfunding, but it's still not a good look. What's more, similar questions about data collection have been lobbed at the BLS regarding its compilation of monthly consumer and producer price reports, which are critical now in assessing the impact of Trump's tariff rises on inflation. These statistics, along with the U.S. employment report, are the most important monthly updates for financial markets, mainly because they play a pivotal role in Federal Reserve thinking, given its dual mandate to maintain maximum employment and stable prices. Trump this week appointed Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni - a contributor to the controversial Project 2025 wishlist of policies for a second Trump term - to run the BLS. Antoni recently suggested suspending the monthly payrolls report until data problems were fixed, which could result in long data gaps at a critical moment for the U.S. economy, monetary policy and markets. Importantly though, the White House and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have pushed back on that idea. But then came Tuesday's attack on Goldman boss David Solomon, with calls for him to appoint a new chief economist following the release of a report on Sunday by his colleague Jan Hatzius. The report estimated U.S. consumers had so far borne less than a quarter of the cost of tariffs but could see that rise to two-thirds over time. This may simply be nothing more than Trump complaining about a forecast he doesn't like, but it's still a move that risks tinkering with one of the most basic market tenets: the plurality of views. There's an obvious concern that - intentionally or not - these public attacks could cause economic data, research and forecasts to become more pro-government or lead to self-censorship by those keen to avoid seeing their business or careers damaged by presidential opprobrium. To its credit, Goldman said it would keep doing its job regardless of the political pressure. But it would hardly say otherwise. Perhaps more telling was the lack of public outcry from other economists who might reasonably be concerned that Trump's attacks on unflattering forecasts represent a worrying trend for their profession and market transparency overall. Of course, they or their institutions may simply have thought it best to stay quiet, assuming the issue would blow over soon. Does any of this matter long term? To be sure, economic forecasting can hardly be held up as a sacred cow if accuracy is what matters. A University of California, Berkeley study late last year looked at more than 16,000 forecasts by banks and large firms and concluded that while 53% of forecasters were confident in their predictions, they were correct only 23% of the time. But economists' forecasts still play a role, accurate or not. So any type of bias, even unintentional, could have a significant impact on market thinking. Of course, if there were a consensus that official data was likely to be biased to flatter the government, then the process of forecasting those official numbers may just be to mechanically move in that direction. But that would undoubtedly create confusion. To better capture what's really going on, investors may be more inclined to commission private economic data. And yet the cost of doing that on a frequent basis would be prohibitive for smaller players, meaning big information gaps could open up, making markets less efficient overall. If political bias in official data and forecasting were to emerge in the current environment, one might expect to see firmer job creation and softer inflation readouts. That could keep markets calm in the short term. But any weakness in the real economy would emerge eventually, likely resulting in a rude awakening for many, no matter what the official data says. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest , your essential new source for global financial commentary. Follow ROI on LinkedIn. Plus, sign up for my weekday newsletter, Morning Bid U.S. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
15 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trump turns ally investments into $10 trillion US 'sovereign wealth fund'
US President Donald Trump's trade policy has tied the financing of new American factories to the easing of some tariffs for foreign allies, a strategy that could channel more than $10 trillion into US manufacturing and critical industries, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a Fox Business interview on Wednesday (local time). 'We have agreements in place where the Japanese, the Koreans, and to some extent the Europeans will invest in companies and industries that we direct—largely at the President's discretion,' Bessent said. 'Other countries, in essence, are providing us with a sovereign wealth fund.' Trade allies 'buying down tariffs' with US factory investment The arrangement, described earlier by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick as 'buying down tariffs', involves substantial sums. 'Take Japan, for example—we're going to have $550 billion, and they will reinvest that back into the US economy. We will be able to direct that as we reshore these critical industries,' Bessent said. The targeted sectors include semiconductors, magnets, pharmaceuticals, steel, cars, and defence technology. 'We are trying to derisk the US economy from what we saw during Covid,' he added. Earlier today, Mitsubishi Corp announced a $600 million investment for a 30 per cent stake in Arizona's Copper World project, weeks after the US imposed a 50 per cent tariff on all copper imports. 'Donald Trump loves factories' 'The President loves new factories,' the host said during the exchange. 'He'll take rehabbed old factories, but he loves new factories—especially in strategic areas you are mentioning: semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, cars, steel, defence technology. That's the heart of his whole trade policy—he wants new factories.' 'And if a couple of these countries have to pay up for the privilege of helping us—fine,' the host added. Bessent responded: 'He likes factories and the factory workers love him… Those steelworkers—he is their President.' 'He wants Main Street to win… Within the next year or two, Main Street's going to hit a new high too,' Bessent said. No tariff reduction consideration for China Not all tariffs will be considered for reduction. 'Twenty per cent of the tariffs are what we call the fentanyl tariffs,' Bessent said. 'We will need to see months, if not quarters, if not a year of progress on that before I could imagine those tariffs coming down.' He noted that China is the source of the precursor chemicals for fentanyl, which are shipped via Canada and Mexico into the US, causing an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 American deaths last year. Asked whether China could participate in the investment-for-tariff-reduction plan, Bessent replied: 'My sense is no… many of those [industries] need to be reshored away from China.' Tariff revenue touches $300 billion, could cross $10 trillion The scale of the trade-and-investment initiative is significant. 'On tariff income alone, I'd been saying $300 billion, but we'll likely revise that up—well in excess of 1 per cent of GDP,' Bessent said. 'Add the sovereign investments and private industry commitments, and we're well over $10 trillion.' Supreme Court hearing on Trump tariffs However, Trump's trade policy is facing court challenges, with the Supreme Court expected to hear the case in October and deliver a ruling in early 2026. In the meantime, tariffs are likely to stay in place while litigation proceeds. 'If the tariff court rules against us, the tariffs will likely continue while it's enjoined. Then it goes to the Supreme Court in October, with a ruling expected in January,' Bessent said. 'The more deals we've done, the harder it is for SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the United States] to rule against it.'
