Assam CM inaugurates Bhagadatta Flyover-2 near Dispur, built in record 9 months
Completed in just nine months - half the originally sanctioned period of eighteen months - this Rs. 112 crore, 660-metre-long, four-lane structure was officially designated as Bhagadatta Flyover-2 in honour of King Bhagadatta of Kamarupa.
Additionally, the flyover located in the Super Market area of the city would henceforth be known as Bhagadatta Flyover-1.
Speaking at the inauguration ceremony, Chief Minister Sarma stated that the new flyover forms part of the state government's broader initiative to improve Guwahati's urban transport infrastructure and alleviate persistent traffic congestion in the area.
He highlighted that the entire construction team comprised young professionals from Assam and that the project represents only the second instance in the country of a flyover constructed using advanced composite structure technology by the Government of India's agency, RITES India Limited.
He added that provisions have also been made for vehicle parking beneath the structure to support local commercial establishments.
The Chief Minister noted that the current administration is committed to development rooted in both technological advancement and cultural heritage.
The naming of the flyovers after King Bhagadatta, he explained, is intended to familiarise younger generations with the ancient legacy of Kamrup and Guwahati.
He outlined several upcoming infrastructure initiatives, including a ramp addition to the Ganeshguri flyover, new flyovers at Arya Nagar, Maligaon, and Radha Govinda Baruah Road, and an elevated corridor at Bharalumukh.
'Flyovers at the Cycle Factory area and Bharalumukh are scheduled for inauguration in February next year, while the Noonmati-Chandmari flyover is expected to open by April. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is slated to lay the foundation stone for the proposed Narengi-Kurua bridge and the Guwahati Ring Road in September. The bridge linking Guwahati and North Guwahati is set to be opened in January next year. Additionally, a new terminal building at Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport would be inaugurated in November, alongside the commencement of an elevated corridor connecting the airport to Jalukbari, to be implemented by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways within the current year,' the Chief Minister said.
CM Sarma stated that Guwahati is emerging as a major centre of employment, not only for Assam but for the broader North Eastern region.
Livelihood opportunities for approximately 10 lakh individuals have been created in the city, reiterating the government's commitment to reducing outward migration for employment among the state's youth, he said.
The Narengi-Kurua and Guwahati-North Guwahati bridges, he noted, are expected to expand the city's spatial footprint while simultaneously enhancing job availability.
'Several multinational firms have reportedly expressed interest in establishing call centres in Guwahati. In parallel, infrastructure development efforts are underway in other cities, including Dibrugarh, Jorhat, Tezpur, and Silchar. Two flyovers have already been completed in Dibrugarh and Jorhat, and a third project in Jorhat is scheduled to begin next year,' he said.
The Chief Minister concluded by stating that Assam is progressing economically as a result of the present administration's development agenda, noting that the Reserve Bank of India recognised Assam last year as the third most economically progressive state in the country.
At the event, he also felicitated the engineers and representatives of the construction agency responsible for Bhagadatta Flyover-2. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
33 minutes ago
- Economic Times
M&M shares in focus after June production rises 20% to 83,435 units; sales up 14%
M&M shares: The auto major reported a 20% year-on-year (YoY) rise in production, reaching 83,435 units in June 2025. Synopsis M&M shares: Monthly sales increased by 14% year-over-year, reaching 76,335 units, up from 66,800 units in the same month last year. Exports saw a modest 1% rise, growing to 2,634 units from 2,597 units in June 2024. Mahindra & Mahindra (M&M) shares will be in focus on Tuesday after the auto major reported a 20% year-on-year (YoY) increase in production to 83,435 units for June 2025, up from 69,441 units in the same month last year, according to its Q1FY26 business update. ADVERTISEMENT Sales for the month rose 14% YoY to 76,335 units, compared to 66,800 units a year earlier. Exports edged up 1% to 2,634 units from 2,597 units in June 2024. Also Read: 10 Nifty large-cap stocks with up to 38 buy calls; analysts see up to 20% upside In the March 2025 quarter, M&M posted a 22% YoY rise in standalone net profit to Rs 2,437 crore, while revenue grew 24% YoY to Rs 31,609 crore, both beating street profit after tax grew 20% YoY to Rs 3,295 crore during the quarter, with revenue from operations up 20% YoY at Rs 42,599 crore. ADVERTISEMENT The automaker's robust numbers were backed by double-digit growth across segments. Total vehicle sales rose 18% YoY to 2,53,028 units, including an 18% rise in utility vehicle (UV) volumes to about 1.49 lakh units and a 23% increase in tractor sales to 87,138 units.M&M's automotive revenue market share expanded 310 basis points to 23.5% in Q4, while its farm segment market share rose 170 basis points to 43.3% for FY25. ADVERTISEMENT According to Trendlyne, the average target price for M&M is Rs 3,569, implying a potential upside of nearly 13% from current levels. Of the 36 analysts covering the stock, the consensus rating is 'Strong Buy'.M&M shares have rallied 27% in the last three months and 102% over the past two years. The company's market capitalisation currently stands at Rs 3,93,042 crore. ADVERTISEMENT Also Read: Street favourite! 10 BSE large-cap stocks analysts expect to rally up to 70% (Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of the Economic Times) (You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel) markets newsstock market news Nikita Papers IPO opens on May 27, price band set at Rs 95-104 per share Nikita Papers IPO opens on May 27, price band set at Rs 95-104 per share Why gold prices could surpass $4,000: JP Morgan's bullish outlook explained Why gold prices could surpass $4,000: JP Morgan's bullish outlook explained Cyient shares fall over 9% after Q4 profit declines, core business underperforms Cyient shares fall over 9% after Q4 profit declines, core business underperforms L&T Technology Services shares slide 7% after Q4 profit dips L&T Technology Services shares slide 7% after Q4 profit dips Trump-Powell standoff puts U.S. Rate policy in crosshairs: Who will blink first? Trump-Powell standoff puts U.S. Rate policy in crosshairs: Who will blink first? SEBI warns of securities market frauds via YouTube, Facebook, X and more SEBI warns of securities market frauds via YouTube, Facebook, X and more API Trading for All: Pi42 CTO Satish Mishra on How Pi42 is Empowering Retail Traders API Trading for All: Pi42 CTO Satish Mishra on How Pi42 is Empowering Retail Traders Security, transparency, and innovation: What sets Pi42 apart in crypto trading Security, transparency, and innovation: What sets Pi42 apart in crypto trading Bitcoin, Ethereum, or Altcoins? How investors are structuring their crypto portfolios, Avinash Shekhar explains Bitcoin, Ethereum, or Altcoins? How investors are structuring their crypto portfolios, Avinash Shekhar explains The rise of Crypto Futures in India: Leverage, tax efficiency, and market maturity, Avinash Shekhar of Pi42 explains NEXT STORY
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
No LTCG tax on Rs 1.32 crore house bought only at Rs 45 lakh: Homebuyer wins LTCG tax exemption case at Delhi ITAT after 7 years fight
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads How did he calculate the LTCG Section 54 tax exemption amount? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads How did this Section 54 capital gains tax exemption case start? February 21, 2005: Dwivedi signed an agreement of sale for purchase of the now disputed Delhi property. He agreed to pay Rs 68 lakh in full and final consideration for this Delhi house and paid Rs 2 lakh via cheque as token money. Dwivedi signed an agreement of sale for purchase of the now disputed Delhi property. He agreed to pay Rs 68 lakh in full and final consideration for this Delhi house and paid Rs 2 lakh via cheque as token money. March 20, 2005: The original house owner died leaving behind his last will and testament, which was also registered. His will bequeathed the aforesaid portions of the said property unto 1) 1st daughter 2) 2nd daughter and 3) his son. The original house owner died leaving behind his last will and testament, which was also registered. His will bequeathed the aforesaid portions of the said property unto 1) 1st daughter 2) 2nd daughter and 3) his son. 2005: The original house owner's son alleged that the sale agreement signed in February 2005 is forged and fabricated. He also alleged that his sisters and Dwivedi were putting pressure on him for selling his portion of the house property. He filed a case in the High Court soon after this. The original house owner's son alleged that the sale agreement signed in February 2005 is forged and fabricated. He also alleged that his sisters and Dwivedi were putting pressure on him for selling his portion of the house property. He filed a case in the High Court soon after this. May 2013: Delhi High Court allowed the sisters to sell their portion of the property to Dwivedi for Rs 21 lakh each i.e. Rs 42 lakh in total consideration. The legality/validity of the 'Agreement to Sell' dated February 21, 2005 is yet to be decided. Delhi High Court allowed the sisters to sell their portion of the property to Dwivedi for Rs 21 lakh each i.e. Rs 42 lakh in total consideration. The legality/validity of the 'Agreement to Sell' dated February 21, 2005 is yet to be decided. December 2013: Dwivedi sold his Lucknow house for Rs 45.95 lakh and earned a long term capital gain of Rs 17.13 lakh. Dwivedi sold his Lucknow house for Rs 45.95 lakh and earned a long term capital gain of Rs 17.13 lakh. July 16, 2015: Dwivedi filed an ITR declaring his income to be Rs 19.43 lakh. His ITR was selected for scrutiny and a tax notice under Section 142(1) was sent to him. Dwivedi filed an ITR declaring his income to be Rs 19.43 lakh. His ITR was selected for scrutiny and a tax notice under Section 142(1) was sent to him. November 29, 2016: Dwivedi filed a response to the Section 142(1) tax notice. He acknowledged that he genuinely forgot to claim Section 54 tax exemption in his original ITR and hence now he filed a revised computation. Dwivedi filed a response to the Section 142(1) tax notice. He acknowledged that he genuinely forgot to claim Section 54 tax exemption in his original ITR and hence now he filed a revised computation. December 2016: The Income Tax Department assessing officer (AO) did not allow the claim of deduction under Section 54 on the ground that the said claim was not made either in the original ITR or by way of a revised ITR. What did Delhi ITAT say about Section 54 LTCG tax exemption? Here's what the Delhi ITAT said about Section 54: The above Section does not mandate that for claiming deduction under Section 54 filing of the claim in the return (ITR) is a mandatory condition. Further, without going into the controversy as to whether the above transaction regarding Long Term Capital Gain in respect of Lucknow property and the investment in Delhi property for claiming deduction under Section 54 was intentional or unintentional, the fact remains that as per the provisions of Section 45 ,the capital gains arising on the sale of Lucknow property shall inter alia be effected in the previous year save as otherwise provided in sections 54. As per the provision of Section 45(1) and Section 54(1)(ii), the assessee will be entitled for deduction of Rs 17,13,015 under Section 54 as claimed by him since the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs 17,13,015 is less than the purchase cost of Rs 22,30,000 paid by the assessee for the new Delhi property, which was paid one year prior to the purchase of the Lucknow property, as required under the said provisions. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is entitled for deduction of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs 17,13,015 under Section 54 and therefore the addition of Rs 17,13,015 made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted. Accordingly, grounds no.1 and 2 of the appeal is allowed. What did Delhi ITAT say about properties purchased below circle rates? "First proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) states that once the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for transfer of immovable property and date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of sub-clause i.e. 56(2)(vii)(b).' 'The second proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) says that first proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to thereof, has been paid by any mode other than cash on or before the date of the agreement for the transfer of such property. It was submitted by the ld. AR that both the two conditions are satisfied in the case of the assessee and therefore the addition of Rs 86,66,666 should be deleted.' Delhi ITAT final Judgement The Delhi High Court in its order dated 01.05.2013 in CS(OS) No.195/2008 in para no.8 had stated that while passing the present order that the Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and/or the legality/validity of the 'Agreement to Sell dated 21.02.2005' relied upon the by the assessee (plaintiff) and disputed by the defendant- son of late house owner. Therefore, the above contention of the assessee in ground no.3 that the agreement to sell the Delhi property in 2005 was admitted/confirmed by the Delhi High Court while delivering a decision on specific performance of the contract is not correct. Further, the relief of Rs 86,66,666 granted as above on the basis of available facts will be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Hon'ble Court. The Assessing Officer will be at liberty to take necessary action as per law upon the receipt of the outcome of the Hon'ble Court on the legality/validity of the Agreement dated 21.02.2005 Ground no.3 of the appeal is allowed with the above observations. What is the significance of this judgement for house property buyers? When Mr Dwivedi sold his house in Lucknow to buy another one in Delhi back in 2013, he had no idea that his decision would lead to a series of nightmares that would haunt him for nearly 7 years. The first nightmare started when the original owner of the Delhi property passed away and his son contested the validity of the sale agreement that had been signed by his father and Dwivedi at Delhi High second nightmare started when the income tax department denied Mr Dwivedi's claim for the Section 54 long term capital gains (LTCG) tax exemption, as he claimed to have forgotten to mention the Section 54 tax exemption while submitting his income tax return (ITR).The third nightmare began when his income tax assessing officer issued him a notice regarding undisclosed income, as he had purchased the Delhi property for Rs 45 lakh, while the circle rate valuation was Rs 1.32 crore. Therefore, according to the tax department, Dwivedi had undisclosed gains of Rs 86 lakh (Rs 1.32 crore minus Rs 45 lakh) by buying the property at a price lower than the circle fought both the cases in Delhi High Court (CS(OS) No.195/2008) and Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) (ITA No.6293/Del/2018) and managed a partial the Delhi High Court case, the court allowed the two daughters of the deceased original house owner to sell their shares of the house to Dwivedi. However, the original house owner's son is still in the fight and so the final decision has not been announced the Delhi ITAT, the request for a Section 54 capital gains tax exemption was granted and the income addition of Rs 86 lakh (Rs 1.32 crore circle rate-45 lakh sale value) was of the reasons why Dwivedi won the Section 54 capital gains tax exemption case in ITAT was due to the interpretations of Section 45(1) and section 54(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, ITAT said: '…As per the provision of section 45(1) and section 54(1)(ii), the assessee will be entitled for deduction under Section 54 as claimed by him since the amount of Long Term Capital Gain is less than the purchase cost paid by the assessee for the new property, which was paid one year prior to the purchase of the Lucknow property, as required under the said provisions.'One of the reasons why Dwivedi won the Rs 86 lakh income addition case (where the purchase price was lower than the circle rate) at ITAT was due to the way the Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was interpreted. The interpretation put forth by Dwivedi's legal team was approved by the Delhi ITAT, leading to the cancellation of the lawyers said this to Delhi ITAT: 'First proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b), stated that once the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for transfer of immovable property and date of registration are not same, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of subclause i.e. 56(2)(vii)(b).'However, it must be noted that all of these victories will only be accepted on the basis of the pending Delhi High Court case's final out the legal reasoning behind Dwivedi win in this property title dispute, which involves Section 54 and tax notice due to difference in sale value and the circle calculated his long-term capital gains from the sale of the Lucknow property to be Rs 17 lakh (17,13,015) as he sold the Lucknow property for Rs 45 lakh (45,95,177) and claimed Rs 28 lakh (28,82,162) as indexed cost of acquisition. Indexation benefits are applied to capital gains transactions to factor in the effect of inflation on the purchasing power of we are talking about the tax case in Delhi ITAT and not the property title case pending in Delhi High Court. According to the order of the Delhi ITAT dated June 12, 2025, this is the timeline of the events:The AO also made an addition of Rs 86.66 lakh to his total income being the difference in cost of acquisition of the property and Delhi circle rate at that filed a case against the orders of the tax department first in CIT (Appeals) and then later in Delhi Delhi ITAT said: 'The only objection of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee had not disclosed the above transaction in its original return of income and also did not file any revised return in respect of the above transaction.'Dwivedi's lawyers said before Delhi ITAT:After hearing the interpretation of Dwidevi's lawyers, Delhi ITAT said: 'The first and second proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) squarely applies in the case of the assessee….Further, the stamp duty of the Delhi property claimed by the assessee at Rs 39,87,348, which is less than the purchase consideration of Rs 45,33,334 paid by the assessee has not been disputed by the lower authorities and therefore the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act will not be applicable in this case.'Delhi ITAT refers to this case judgement: "This view (above) is also supported by the decision of the Pune Tribunal in the case of Sanjay Dattatraya Dapodikar vs ITO, in ITA No.1747/Pune/2018 [2019] 107 2019 (Pune Trib.), wherein, on similar facts, the Tribunal decided the claim in favour of the assessee.'The Section 54 claim and tax notice for buying a property below the circle rate was deleted by Delhi ITAT subject to the outcome of the pending Delhi High Court ITAT said:ET Wealth Online has asked various experts about the significance of this judgement for property buyers, here's what they said:This case establishes that substantive compliance with the conditions of Section 54 takes precedence over procedural lapses, such as delayed disclosure. It also clarifies that the 'date of purchase' for exemption purposes is the date of completed and legally effective purchases. This distinction is crucial in situations involving litigation, delayed possession, or long intervals between agreement and ruled that section 54 does not mandate filing of the income-tax return for claiming exemption. Instead, the exemption can be validly claimed during assessment proceedings, even if it was not declared earlier. The ITAT further emphasized that a registered sale deed constitutes a valid purchase for exemption purposes. An earlier agreement to sell holds no legal weight in this context. Since the homebuyer completed the property purchase within the prescribed timeframe, the exemption was Delhi ITAT ruled in favour of homebuyer Dwivedi, granting him the Section 54 exemption on long-term capital gains even though the claim was not made in his original or revised Tribunal noted that the law does not require such a claim to be included in the return itself, and since the capital gains were reinvested in a new residential property within the prescribed time frame, the exemption could not be denied on procedural further clarified that the Delhi property was effectively purchased in December 2013 when the sale deed was registered and possession was handed over not in 2005, when only an 'agreement to sell' was signed and subsequently contested. As the reinvestment occurred within one year prior to the sale of the original property, and all substantive conditions under Section 54 were satisfied, the Tribunal allowed the ruling reinforces that under Section 54 capital gains exemption can be allowed even if not claimed in the return, provided the core conditions are fulfilled. It also clarifies that the decisive date for exemption is when the sale deed is executed and possession is taken and not the date of an earlier agreement to will guide similar cases where the distinction between 'agreement to sell' and 'sale deed execution' is under litigation. Overall, the judgment sets a taxpayer-friendly precedent, underscoring the principle that substance should take precedence over procedural decision again emphasizes that the taxpayer should not be deprived of his rights to claim legitimate deductions or relief due to ignorance of the law and only legitimate tax must be assessed and is a settled position and in fact instruction by the CBDT to the tax officers that the tax department must not take advantage of ignorance of the taxpayer as to his rights and it is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in claiming and securing this case before Delhi ITAT, since the tax department has accepted the long-term capital gain declared by the taxpayer in revised computation during the assessment proceeding, the deduction under section 54 is consequential once the conditions prescribed in the said section are satisfied by the ITAT has rightly observed that section 54 does not mandate that filing of return is mandatory for claiming deduction under section 54 of the Act, when the computation of long-term capital gain is not in procedural mistakes by taxpayers can not be reason for denial of any tax benefit and the same was considered by courts in several matters. Courts have always emphasized on the fact that if conditions prescribed by the income tax act are fulfilled, procedural mistakes (like providing appropriate details in ITR, submitting required forms etc) done by taxpayers can be the given case, two important aspects are considered by the Delhi Tribunal. Firstly, Section does not mandate that for claiming deduction u/s 54 of the Act (by investing gain earned from property transferred into another property), filing of the claim in the return is a mandatory condition. Secondly, immovable property can be acquired below stamp duty value if certain conditions are fulfilled as per Sec 56(2)(vii)(b) [now replaced with Sec 56(2)(x)].In spite of several judgments, taxpayers are always advised to file requisite forms and show correct details in ITR, as such kind of relief is usually given at 2nd/3rd level of appeal and cost of litigation can be substantial for small taxpayers.
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
Kotak Mahindra Bank shares in focus following Q1 business update
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel Shares of Kotak Mahindra Bank are likely to be in focus on Tuesday, July 8, after the private sector lender released its business update for the quarter ended June 30, 2025 (Q1FY26).According to provisional data disclosed by the bank, total average deposits for the June quarter stood at Rs 4,91,998 crore, reflecting a 12.9% year-on-year growth compared to Rs 4,35,603 crore in the same period last year. On a sequential basis, average deposits rose 5% from Rs 4,68,486 crore reported in the March 2025 bank's end-of-period (EOP) total deposits stood at Rs 5,12,838 crore as of June 30, 2025, compared to Rs 4,99,055 crore as of March 31, 2025, and Rs 4,47,418 crore as of June 30, 2024. This marks a year-on-year increase of 14.6% and a quarter-on-quarter growth of 2.8%.Kotak Mahindra Bank also reported average CASA (Current Account and Savings Account) deposits of Rs 1,91,995 crore during the June 2025 quarter, up 4.2% from Rs 1,84,306 crore a year ago and 2.1% higher than Rs 1,88,039 crore reported in the previous CASA deposits on an end-of-period basis came in at Rs 2,09,645 crore as of June 30, 2025, slightly lower than Rs 2,14,416 crore in the March quarter, indicating a 2.2% sequential decline. On a year-on-year basis, EOP CASA deposits rose 7.9% from Rs 1,94,222 advances of the bank grew to Rs 4,44,731 crore as of June 30, 2025, compared to Rs 4,26,909 crore as of March 31, 2025, and Rs 3,89,957 crore as of June 30, 2024. This represents a 14% year-on-year growth and a 4.2% rise over the previous Monday, Kotak Mahindra Bank shares closed flat at Rs 2,147 on the suggestions, views, and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)
