Nifty's Future: Harshubh Shah's Insights with Time and Price Precision

The Nifty50 faced a weekly loss of over 1% due to geopolitical tensions, failing to stay above 25,000. Harshubh Shah's precise forecasts accurately predicted market movements using time and price analysis, highlighting key levels.
The Nifty50 ended the week of June 13, 2025, with a loss exceeding 1%, impacted by rising geopolitical concerns that dampened market sentiment. The index struggled to maintain levels above 25,000, closing the week on a bearish note.
In our previous analysis, June 10–11 were identified as critical breakout dates. The market responded precisely, with Nifty forming a top on June 11. After breaching the day's low, the index dropped over 500 points across Thursday and Friday, aligning with our price and time forecasts.
June 16 (± one day) was marked as an important time-based cycle date. June 13, just one session prior, saw a sharp 300-point gap-down, validating the strength of time-based forecasting.
Our level-based analysis was highly accurate: Support at 24,535 was nearly spot on, with the week's low at 24,508. The 25,085 zone was flagged as key resistance, with June 9, 10, and 11 lows consistently around this level.
Time Analysis highlighted the power of price-time confluence: June 9's high at 11:20 AM & 12:30 PM; June 10's swing low near 11:00 AM; June 11's top at 12:10 PM & 1:15 PM; June 12's high and low at 9:30 AM & 2:00 PM; and June 13's low and high at 9:20 AM & 1:30 PM.
These consistent hits underscore how combining price and time offers traders a strategic edge for high-accuracy trades.
Support levels: 24,480 | 24,443 | 24,380 | 24,142
Resistance levels: 24,850 | 24,980 | 25,085 | 25,322
Traders are advised to use these levels with time zones for optimized intraday and swing trades. In volatile markets, precise timing with price action is crucial. Our approach provides tactical clarity and market edge for active traders.
(Harshubh Shah is Director at Wealthview Analytics Pvt Ltd. Views expressed are his own and not of the Economic Times.)