ArMee Infotech
FinMinutes Deep Business Model & Edge
ArMee Infotech Limited is an Indian IT infrastructure and IT managed services provider that has expanded into retail Experience Zones and Renewable Energy EPC, PPAs, and Battery Energy Storage Systems. Headquartered in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, the company primarily serves government entities, public sector undertakings, and private sector clients across India.
What this company actually does — full breakdown ▾
ArMee Infotech Limited is an IT infrastructure and managed services company providing end-to-end technology solutions, including system integration, IT hardware supply, network setup, technical staffing, and operation and maintenance services. The company has expanded into retail Experience Zones for IT and consumer electronics products, as well as the Renewable Energy sector covering solar power EPC contracts, long-term solar Power Purchase Agreements, and Battery Energy Storage Systems. Its primary customers are Government entities and Public Sector Undertakings along with private sector clients, with government and end-user PSU projects contributing 83.84% of Fiscal 2026 revenue from operations. Geographically, operations are concentrated in Western and Southern India, with Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu accounting for 86.48% of Fiscal 2026 revenue from operations. The company operates through a project-based supply chain model, procuring electronic hardware, solar equipment, and IT components from third-party Technology Partners (with the top three partners contributing 65.84% of total purchases in Fiscal 2026) without long-term contracts. In terms of scale, ArMee Infotech achieved consolidated revenue from operations of ₹ 1,396.63 crore in Fiscal 2026 and maintained an order book of ₹ 2,663.44 crore as of June 30, 2026.
- IT Infrastructure — Supply, installation, integration, networking, and maintenance of IT hardware and software for project-based infrastructure.
- IT Managed Services — Technical staffing, skill development training, and annual maintenance/operational support services.
- Renewable Energy Solar EPC — Turnkey engineering, procurement, and construction of solar power projects, PPAs, and Battery Energy Storage Systems.
Proven track record in executing large-scale public sector IT infrastructure projects, pre-qualification credentials for government e-marketplaces, long-standing relationships with major Technology Partners, and strategic diversification into Renewable Energy EPC and interactive retail Experience Zones.
The Offer
Follow the Money — Use of Proceeds
- Funds for the purpose of securing PBGs for expansion of business — ₹155.00 cr
- Funding our working capital requirements — ₹60.00 cr
- Prepayment or repayment of certain outstanding borrowings availed by our Company — ₹6.50 cr
- General corporate purposes
Valuation at the Offer Price
The filing does not print a single headline multiple, so this one is ours: the upper band divided by the latest restated earnings per share — the same arithmetic the “Basis for the Offer Price” section performs. It is struck on pre-issue earnings; where the issue creates new shares, the post-issue multiple is computed in the workings below. The peer group is the one the filing itself names. A premium is not the same thing as expensive and a discount is not the same thing as cheap — the peer table and the reasons sit further down this page.
FinMinutes IPO Score — How It's Built
Transparent, deterministic, computed from the filing — not an opinion. Open any component below to see exactly what it measures and what it is worth. Components with no disclosed input are dropped from the weighting entirely rather than held at an invented neutral, because a constant inside a weighted average is not neutral — it quietly drags every score toward the middle. Weighted across 5 live components.
100% of the designed weighting had real data behind it on this issue. A lower coverage figure does not mean a worse company — it means we are standing behind less of the picture, and you should read the findings below rather than the headline number.
How this is measured12%
Whether fresh capital actually enters the business. A predominantly offer-for-sale issue is marked down ONLY when the financials are weak. A profitable, cash-rich company selling down is treated as neutral, not penalised, because it does not need the money.
How this is measured12%
What changed between the draft prospectus and the final one. A period roll-forward or a refreshed industry report is expected and scores neutral. A statutory auditor replaced mid-process, a prior year restated, an offer-for-sale expanded late, new statutory dues disclosed, or a risk factor quietly removed all score against. Where only one of the two documents has been read, this component is dropped from the weighting rather than guessed.
How this is measured32%
Driven by the models battery run on the filing's own restated numbers: the Piotroski fundamental tests (scored out of those we could actually run), the Altman Z-double-prime solvency zone, and the direction of profit across the disclosed period. It is not a single yes/no on last year's profit.
How this is measured10%
The post-issue earnings multiple against the peer median disclosed in the filing. A discount to the median scores well and a premium scores badly. When the filing does not disclose comparable peer multiples, this component is dropped from the weighting rather than held at a made-up neutral.
How this is measured28%
Starts at 100 and loses points for every material finding: 12 for a flagged finding, 4 for a noted one. Two kinds feed it. DERIVED findings are computed from the filed numbers against stated thresholds — operating cash negative while profit is positive, related-party revenue above 15% of total, revenue rising while profit falls, goodwill above 30% of net worth, receivables growing more than 1.3x faster than sales, cash below half of short-term debt. Those are reproducible: the same filing gives the same answer every time, and the rule is printed beside the finding. READ findings come from the forensic sweep of the notes. Contingent liabilities, related-party intensity, customer concentration, litigation, auditor qualifications, statutory dues, promoter funding. Findings that record the ABSENCE of a problem — no litigation pending, an unmodified audit opinion — deduct nothing. This is the component our forensic read drives directly, and it moves most between companies.
3-Year Financial & Growth Trend
| Metric | FY26 | FY25 | FY24 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue (₹ Cr) | 1396.63 | 1313.31 | 1020.57 |
| Net Profit (₹ Cr) | 45.47 | 41.67 | 50.13 |
| PAT Margin | 3.26% | 3.17% | 4.91% |
Revenue Breakdown
- IT Infrastructure: 85.81%
- Renewable Energy Solar EPC: 8.93%
- IT Managed Services: 5.26%
Market Context
NOT part of the FinMinutes ScoreThe Score above is what the filing says. Everything in this box is what the crowd says. We keep them apart on purpose — every other site blends the two and calls the result a rating. Demand is real information, but it is information about the market, not about the company, and it changes by the hour while the company does not.
Demand and our read of the filing are broadly in the same territory.
Subscription is low early in a book and high at the end, because most bids arrive in the final hours. A number read on day one says more about the clock than the company — which is precisely why it is not in the Score. GMP is unofficial, unregulated, and easily moved. Neither is a recommendation.
Why the numbers moved, in management’s own words
Taken from the Management’s Discussion and Analysis section of the filing. A number tells you what happened; this is the company’s explanation of why, and whether it calls the cause temporary or structural.
| Metric | Move | Management's stated reason | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue from Operations (FY26 vs FY25) | ↑ 6.3% | Revenue from operations grew due to the commencement of the Renewable Energy EPC business contributing ₹ 124.70 crore, partially offset by a marginal reduction in IT Infrastructure Solutions revenue. | Structural |
| Purchases of Stock-in-Trade (FY26 vs FY25) | ↓ 15.8% | Purchases of stock-in-trade declined due to lower procurement of traded goods in line with changes in project composition and execution mix for IT Infrastructure orders. | Structural |
| Cost of EPC Contract and Other Related Services (FY26 vs FY25) | ↑ 100.0% | New direct cost line incurred following the entry into and execution of turnkey solar EPC contracts in Fiscal 2026. | Structural |
| Changes in Inventories of Stock-in-Trade (FY26 vs FY25) | ↑ 245.5% | Inventory change increased as closing stock was liquidated and consumed for project deliveries during Fiscal 2026. | Structural |
| Finance Costs (FY26 vs FY25) | ↑ 270.9% | Finance costs increased primarily due to interest paid to vendors on account of delayed payments received from a customer, alongside higher cash credit utilization. | One-off |
| Depreciation and Amortisation Expense (FY26 vs FY25) | ↑ 165.5% | Depreciation rose significantly after the E-POS Devices Project in Uttarakhand became operational in June 2025, adding ₹ 8.94 crore in fixed assets. | Structural |
| Other Expenses (FY26 vs FY25) | ↑ 70.4% | Other expenses increased due to higher project execution costs, legal and professional fees for establishing the renewable energy vertical, and increased sales commissions. | Structural |
| EBITDA (FY26 vs FY25) | ↑ 29.0% | EBITDA expanded due to higher revenue contribution from higher-margin solar EPC projects and partial normalization of gross margins. | Structural |
| Total Borrowings (FY26 vs FY25) | ↑ 262.5% | Total borrowings increased significantly to fund working capital requirements, higher order book execution, and project term loans from IREDA for solar PPA projects. | Structural |
| Inventories (FY26 vs FY25) | ↓ 78.4% | Inventory holdings decreased due to improved inventory management and consumption of stock for executing ongoing projects. | Cyclical |
| Operating Cash Flow (FY26 vs FY25) | ↑ 169.4% | Operating cash flows turned positive driven by higher operating profitability before working capital changes and cash realization from inventory liquidation and trade receivables. | Cyclical |
| Revenue from Operations (FY25 vs FY24) | ↑ 28.7% | Revenue from operations grew significantly due to an increase in IT Infrastructure project execution and hardware supply orders. | Structural |
| Purchases of Stock-in-Trade (FY25 vs FY24) | ↑ 37.4% | Purchases increased due to a sharp rise in procurement of traded goods required for large-scale IT infrastructure project execution. | Structural |
| Depreciation and Amortisation Expense (FY25 vs FY24) | ↓ 73.7% | Depreciation dropped following the completion and asset disposal of the Fair Price Shops digitalisation project in Uttar Pradesh in March 2024. | One-off |
| Other Expenses (FY25 vs FY24) | ↓ 26.6% | Other expenses declined due to reductions in direct project expenses and lower office rent expenses. | Cyclical |
| Profit After Tax (FY25 vs FY24) | ↓ 16.9% | Net profit fell despite higher revenue because a shift in revenue mix toward lower-margin traded goods compressed overall gross margins. | Structural |
| Trade Receivables (FY25 vs FY24) | ↑ 112.9% | Trade receivables expanded due to revenue growth and ₹ 320.16 crore of invoices billed in Q4 FY25 for a private client under a 120-day credit period. | Cyclical |
| Total Borrowings (FY25 vs FY24) | ↑ 76.5% | Borrowings increased to support working capital requirements arising from expanded order volumes and increased receivables. | Structural |
| Operating Cash Flow (FY25 vs FY24) | ↓ 132.6% | Operating cash flows turned negative due to inventory accumulation and substantial receivables absorption from Q4 invoicing. | Cyclical |
Headwinds
- Geographic Concentration in Western and Southern States company persistent
Generating 86.48% of FY26 revenue from Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu exposes operations to regional policy shifts or budgetary cuts in these specific states. - Client Concentration with Government and PSU Entities sector persistent
Deriving 83.84% of FY26 revenue from projects where government/PSU entities are end-users exposes business to tender delays, qualification changes, and budgetary reallocations. - Supplier Concentration with Top Three Technology Partners company persistent
Procuring 65.84% of hardware and software from top three Technology Partners without long-term supply contracts creates supply chain vulnerability if vendor terms or product quality deteriorate.
Tailwinds
- Government Digital Transformation and Smart Infrastructure Outlays macro
Expanding public sector budgets for smart classrooms, IT infrastructure, and e-governance solutions drive long-term demand for system integration and IT managed services. - National Solar Power Expansion and Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) Tenders sector
India's solar capacity target and rapidly expanding BESS tender pipeline (19.8 GW under tendering) present substantial growth opportunities for Renewable Energy EPC and PPA operators.
Issue Timeline
Dates as carried by the exchange feed. Allotment, refund and credit dates move more often than the open and close dates do.
- Refunds initiated2026-09-29
- Pre Application Start2026-09-22
- Bidding Start2026-09-23
- Bidding End2026-09-25
- Allotment Process Start2026-09-28
- Allotment Finalization2026-09-29
- Listing Day2026-09-30
- Mandate End2026-11-06
Applying, and Who Handles the Allotment
Check allotment status on the registrar’s own portal → We link the registrar directly rather than mirroring the form.
Deep Financials
Revenue, EBITDA and profit are what every listing site prints. Below are the full restated statements as disclosed, the ratios we compute from them, and a DuPont decomposition of the return on equity. A prospectus carries three years, not ten — that is the document’s ceiling, and within it we go as deep as it allows.
Income StatementThe profit and loss as filed, then what we derive from it — kept apart.
Statutory order, exactly as restated in the filing. Finance cost and depreciation sit inside Total Expenses under Ind AS, which is why they are listed among the expense lines here rather than below the total. The expense rows sum to the total. Rows the filing does not disclose separately are omitted rather than left blank.
| Income Statement — as filed (₹ Cr) | FY26 | FY25 | FY24 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue from Operations | 1,396.63 | 1,313.31 | 1,020.57 |
| Other Income | 13.47 | 2.47 | 3.42 |
| Total Income | 1,410.09 | 1,315.78 | 1,024.00 |
| Purchases of Stock-in-Trade | 1,014.64 | 1,205.22 | 877.21 |
| Changes in Inventories | 62.63 | -43.06 | -27.85 |
| Employee Benefit Expense | 52.37 | 50.44 | 42.30 |
| Finance Cost | 24.94 | 6.72 | 6.68 |
| Depreciation & Amortisation | 3.17 | 1.19 | 4.53 |
| Other Expenses | 71.72 | 42.08 | 57.34 |
| Total Expenses | 1,349.10 | 1,262.59 | 960.21 |
| Profit Before Exceptional Items and Tax | 60.99 | 53.20 | 63.78 |
| Exceptional Items | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Profit Before Tax | 60.99 | 53.20 | 63.78 |
| Tax Expense | 15.53 | 11.53 | 13.65 |
| Profit After Tax | 45.47 | 41.67 | 50.13 |
| Other Comprehensive Income | 0.05 | -0.18 | 0.00 |
| Total Comprehensive Income | 45.51 | 41.49 | 50.13 |
| EPS - Basic | 19.16 | 17.56 | 21.12 |
| EPS - Diluted | 19.16 | 17.56 | 21.12 |
Balance SheetWhat the company owns, owes, and is worth on paper.
| Balance Sheet (₹ Cr) | FY26 | FY25 | FY24 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Share Capital | 23.73 | 23.73 | 23.73 |
| Reserves & Surplus | 158.45 | 112.94 | 71.44 |
| Net Worth | 182.18 | 136.67 | 95.18 |
| Long-term Borrowings | 96.70 | 14.18 | 10.57 |
| Short-term Borrowings | 77.66 | 33.92 | 16.68 |
| Total Borrowings | 174.36 | 48.10 | 27.26 |
| Trade Payables | 469.67 | 614.58 | 525.42 |
| Current Liabilities | 654.25 | 664.47 | 558.29 |
| Total Liabilities | 776.69 | 691.88 | 578.32 |
| Property, Plant & Equipment | 32.99 | 10.12 | 8.54 |
| Capital Work in Progress | 70.39 | 8.32 | 0.00 |
| Intangible Assets | 1.20 | 1.56 | 0.00 |
| Investments | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Inventories | 17.31 | 79.94 | 36.88 |
| Trade Receivables | 541.78 | 622.69 | 292.47 |
| Cash & Equivalents | 21.31 | 6.62 | 21.31 |
| Current Assets | 792.83 | 757.07 | 637.95 |
| Total Assets | 958.87 | 828.54 | 673.50 |
Cash FlowWhere the cash actually went. Often the most honest statement of the three.
| Cash Flow (₹ Cr) | FY26 | FY25 | FY24 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Net Cash from Operating Activities | 12.48 | -17.98 | 55.19 |
| Capital Expenditure | 23.03 | 11.53 | 2.40 |
| Net Cash from Investing Activities | -101.66 | -12.65 | -21.32 |
| Net Cash from Financing Activities | 103.88 | 15.94 | -13.05 |
| Net Change in Cash | 14.69 | -14.70 | 20.82 |
Ratio AnalysisProfitability, leverage, liquidity, efficiency and earnings quality — computed by us.
Every ratio below is computed by us from the line items the company disclosed — not copied from anywhere. The arithmetic is standard; the point is that somebody actually did it. Blank cells mean the filing did not disclose the inputs, and we would rather show a gap than invent a number.
| Ratio | FY26 | FY25 | FY24 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Profitability | |||
| EBITDA Margin (%) | 6.3 | 4.6 | 7.3 |
| EBIT Margin (%) | 6.1 | 4.6 | 6.9 |
| PAT Margin (%) | 3.3 | 3.2 | 4.9 |
| Return on Equity (%) | 25 | 30.5 | 52.7 |
| Return on Capital Employed (%) | 24.1 | 32.4 | 57.5 |
| Return on Assets (%) | 4.7 | 5 | 7.4 |
| Leverage | |||
| Debt / Equity (x) | 0.96 | 0.35 | 0.29 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA (x) | 1.72 | 0.68 | 0.08 |
| Interest Coverage (x) | 3.45 | 8.92 | 10.55 |
| Liquidity | |||
| Current Ratio (x) | 1.21 | 1.14 | 1.14 |
| Quick Ratio (x) | 1.19 | 1.02 | 1.08 |
| Efficiency | |||
| Asset Turnover (x) | 1.46 | 1.59 | 1.52 |
| Receivable Days | 142 | 173 | 105 |
| Inventory Days | 6 | 25 | 16 |
| Payable Days | 159 | 193 | 226 |
| Cash Conversion Cycle (days) | -11 | 5 | -105 |
| Quality of Earnings | |||
| Operating Cash Flow / PAT (x) | 0.27 | -0.43 | 1.1 |
| Accruals Ratio (%) | 3.4 | 7.2 | -0.8 |
| Capex / Depreciation (x) | 7.26 | 9.69 | 0.53 |
| Inventory and payable days are measured against cost of goods (materials consumed + purchases of stock-in-trade + change in inventories). Receivable days against revenue. | |||
DuPont DecompositionWhy the return on equity is what it is: margin, efficiency, or leverage.
A headline return on equity tells you what. The DuPont decomposition tells you why — whether the return is earned through margin, through asset efficiency, or simply through leverage. Two companies can post an identical ROE for opposite reasons, and only one of them is safe.
| Component | FY26 | FY25 | FY24 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Net Margin (PAT / Revenue) | 3.3% | 3.2% | 4.9% |
| Asset Turnover (Revenue / Assets) | 1.46x | 1.59x | 1.52x |
| Equity Multiplier (Assets / Net Worth) | 5.26x | 6.06x | 7.08x |
| = Return on Equity | 25% | 30.5% | 52.7% |
| Tax Burden (PAT / PBT) | 0.75x | 0.78x | 0.79x |
| Interest Burden (PBT / EBIT) | 0.71x | 0.89x | 0.91x |
| Operating Margin (EBIT / Revenue) | 6.2% | 4.6% | 6.9% |
Computed from the disclosed statements. Where the filing omits an input, the row is left blank rather than estimated.
Quality of EarningsWhat the statements say when you read them against each other.
What the statements say once you read them against each other. These are observations, not verdicts — every one is arithmetic on the numbers the company itself disclosed, and each is stated so you can go and check it in the filing.
- Operating cash flow was only 0.27x reported profit in FY26. Less than half of the profit on the income statement arrived as cash.
- Receivable days rose from 105 in FY24 to 142 in FY26. The company is booking revenue faster than it is collecting it, which ties up cash and raises the question of who is not paying.
Forensic ModelsBeneish, Altman, Piotroski and the Montier C-score — plus our own final-year check.
Beneish M-Score
7 of 8 inputsAn eight-variable model built to detect earnings manipulation, and built to run on exactly two consecutive years — which is what a prospectus gives us. It belongs here more than anywhere: a company about to list has the maximum possible incentive to have dressed up the very years it is about to show you. A score above −1.78 is the threshold at which the model says the accounts merit a closer look. It is a screening signal, not an accusation, and it was calibrated on listed companies elsewhere. Read the eight components, not just the total.
| Component | Value | What it captures |
|---|---|---|
| DSRI Days Sales in Receivables Index (Receivables_t / Sales_t) / (Receivables_t-1 / Sales_t-1) | 0.818 | Above 1 means receivables grew faster than sales. Revenue may be being recognised ahead of collection. |
| GMI Gross Margin Index GrossMargin_t-1 / GrossMargin_t | — | Above 1 means margins deteriorated. A firm with worsening prospects has more incentive to manipulate. |
| AQI Asset Quality Index AQ_t / AQ_t-1, where AQ = 1 - (CurrentAssets + PPE) / TotalAssets | 1.874 | Above 1 means a rising share of assets is soft (neither current nor fixed) — capitalised costs can hide here. |
| SGI Sales Growth Index Sales_t / Sales_t-1 | 1.063 | Growth is not manipulation. But high-growth firms face more pressure to keep the streak going. |
| DEPI Depreciation Index DepRate_t-1 / DepRate_t, where DepRate = Dep / (Dep + PPE) | 1.2 | Above 1 means assets are being depreciated more slowly — a quiet way to lift reported profit. |
| SGAI SG&A Index (SGA_t / Sales_t) / (SGA_t-1 / Sales_t-1), SGA proxied as employee cost + other expenses | 1.261 | A proxy, because filings rarely break out SG&A cleanly. Read it as a direction, not a precise figure. |
| LVGI Leverage Index Leverage_t / Leverage_t-1, where Leverage = (CurrentLiab + LongTermDebt) / TotalAssets | 0.956 | Above 1 means leverage rose. Debt covenants create pressure to hit numbers. |
| TATA Total Accruals to Total Assets (PAT - CashFromOperations) / TotalAssets | 0.0344 | The gap between reported profit and cash generated. The single heaviest term in the model — and the one that catches profit that never became cash. |
The filing does not disclose every input the model needs, so we withhold the composite score rather than substitute a guess. The components we could compute are above.
Altman Z″-Score (emerging markets)
Z″ = 5.59 · SafeA distress-prediction model. We use the Z″ variant deliberately: the original Z was calibrated on American manufacturers and misleads badly on Indian services companies. Above 2.6 is the safe zone, 1.1 to 2.6 is grey, below 1.1 is the distress zone. Like every model of its kind it is a screen, not a prophecy.
| X1 — Working Capital / Total Assets | 0.145 |
| X2 — Reserves / Total Assets | 0.165 |
| X3 — EBIT / Total Assets | 0.09 |
| X4 — Net Worth / Total Liabilities | 0.235 |
| Z″ = 3.25 + 6.56·X1 + 3.26·X2 + 6.72·X3 + 1.05·X4 | 5.59 |
X2 is meant to read retained earnings. The filing reports Other Equity, which also holds securities premium paid in by investors, so X2 here runs on reserves and reads higher than true retained earnings would. The more premium the company has raised before listing, the more Z″ is flattered.
Piotroski F-Score (adapted)
3 / 7Nine yes-or-no tests of fundamental strength — except we run eight. One of the original nine asks whether the company issued new shares, which is plainly absurd to ask of a company whose entire purpose at this moment is to issue shares. We drop that test, and we would rather tell you that than quietly fudge it. A further 1 test is shown as — below: the filing does not disclose what it needs, so it is dropped from the denominator rather than counted as a failure.
- ✓Positive return on assets
- ✓Positive operating cash flow
- ✗Return on assets improving
- ✗Cash flow exceeds profit (quality of earnings)
- ✗Long-term leverage decreasing
- ✓Current ratio improving
- —Gross margin improving
- ✗Asset turnover improving
Montier C-Score
3 of 6 signsSix yes-or-no signs that reported profit may be running ahead of the business, from James Montier’s 2008 screen, read here for FY26 against FY25. Each is a direction in the statements, not a judgement. Several together are a reason to read the accounting policies and notes closely; none on its own means anything is wrong, and growing companies trip some of them honestly.
- ○Gap between profit and operating cash flow widening · PAT − CFO: ₹59.7 cr in FY25, ₹33.0 cr in FY26
- ○Receivable days rising · 173 days in FY25, 142 days in FY26
- ○Inventory days rising · 25 days in FY25, 6 days in FY26 (on cost of goods)
- ●Other current assets rising against revenue · 3.6% of revenue in FY25, 15.2% in FY26 (current assets less cash, receivables and inventory)
- ●Depreciation falling against fixed assets · 11.8% of net block in FY25, 9.6% in FY26
- ●Total assets growing more than 10% a year · 15.7% in FY26
Ratios Nobody Prints
- Contingent liabilities / Net worth: 70.9%
Contingent liabilities of 129.23 cr against a net worth of 182.18 cr — 70.9% of what the company is worth on paper. These are obligations that sit off the balance sheet but could land on it. What they consist of matters as much as the size: a corporate guarantee to a subsidiary is a different animal from a disputed tax demand, and the filing says which. - Related-party revenue / Total revenue: 0%
0% of revenue in FY26 came from entities connected to the promoters. Revenue you sell to yourself is not the same as revenue you won in the market. - Cash / Short-term borrowings: 0.27x
Short-term borrowings of 77.66 cr against cash of 21.31 cr. Debt that must be refinanced within a year is only comfortable while lenders stay comfortable. - Promoter remuneration / PAT: 8.7%
Managerial remuneration to the promoter group was 3.97 cr against a profit of 45.47 cr. This is a legitimate cost — but it is also a route by which value leaves a company before it ever reaches a minority shareholder.
What the Price RequiresThe profit the offer price needs, at three hurdle rates. A restatement of the price, not a view on it.
At the upper band of ₹375.00, the market value is ₹890 cr. A buyer who wants a given return each year from a business that never grows needs annual profit of market value × that return. The three rates are round hurdle rates, not this company’s cost of capital, so pick the one that is yours. The years columns assume profit compounds from the FY26 figure and the price stands still. None of this is a forecast, a fair value or a target.
| Hurdle rate | Profit the price needs | × FY26 profit | Years at 15% growth | Years at 25% growth |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10% a year | ₹89.0 cr | 2.0x | 4.8 | 3.0 |
| 12% a year | ₹107 cr | 2.3x | 6.1 | 3.8 |
| 14% a year | ₹125 cr | 2.7x | 7.2 | 4.5 |
- Earnings yield at the upper band: 5.11% (FY26 profit ÷ market value).
- Free cash flow yield: -1.19% (operating cash flow less capital expenditure, −₹10.6 cr, ÷ market value).
The Formula NotebookEvery number above, with the working shown. Check us.
Every number we publish, with the working shown. The formula, the same formula with this company’s actual figures put into it, the answer, and what it is for. Check us. That is the point.
PAT ÷ Net Worth45.47 ÷ 182.18What the company earned on the money shareholders have in it. The headline measure of return — and the one the DuPont section takes apart.
EBIT ÷ (Net Worth + Total Borrowings)85.93 ÷ (182.18 + 174.36) = 85.93 ÷ 356.54Return on ALL the capital in the business, borrowed as well as owned. Unlike ROE, it cannot be flattered by taking on debt.
EBITDA ÷ Revenue89.10 ÷ 1,396.63Operating profitability before the effects of debt, tax and depreciation. What the business earns from the act of trading.
Total Borrowings ÷ Net Worth174.36 ÷ 182.18How much the company has borrowed against what it owns. High is not automatically bad — ask whether the borrowing is being serviced comfortably.
EBIT ÷ Finance Cost85.93 ÷ 24.94How many times over operating profit covers the interest bill. Below about 2x, a meaningful share of what the business earns is going to lenders rather than owners.
(Trade Receivables ÷ Revenue) × 365(541.78 ÷ 1,396.63) × 365How long the company waits to be paid. Rising receivable days mean revenue is being booked faster than it is collected — which is where a great many accounting problems begin.
Inventory Days + Receivable Days − Payable Days6 + 142 − 159How long cash is tied up in the operating cycle before it comes back. The longer it is, the more working capital the business must fund.
Cash from Operations ÷ PAT12.48 ÷ 45.47Did the profit turn into cash? Profit is an opinion; cash is a fact. When this sits well below 1x for long, the two are drifting apart, and the filing is where you find out why.
(PAT − Cash from Operations) ÷ Total Assets(45.47 − 12.48) ÷ 958.87 = 32.99 ÷ 958.87The share of reported profit that exists on paper rather than in the bank. It is also the heaviest single term in the Beneish model, for good reason.
Price × Post-issue Shares₹375.00 × 23,731,733 sharesWhat the whole company is being valued at, if the issue prices at the top of the band.
Market Cap + Total Borrowings − Cash889.94 + 174.36 − 21.31What it would actually cost to buy the whole business: you take on its debt and you get its cash. This is the number a buyer cares about, and it is the reason a P/E on its own can mislead.
Enterprise Value ÷ EBITDA1,042.99 ÷ 89.10The multiple that includes debt. Two companies on the same P/E — one debt-free, one heavily borrowed — are not the same investment, and only this number tells you so.
Market Cap ÷ PAT889.94 ÷ 45.47The familiar multiple. Useful, but blind to debt — read it alongside EV/EBITDA, never instead of it.
Offer price ÷ weighted average cost of acquisition₹375.00 ÷ ₹25.00Every offer document must disclose the weighted average cost of acquisition for shares issued or transferred over the preceding one, eighteen and thirty-six months. Early capital takes real risk and a large multiple built over years is ordinary. A steep step-up inside a short window is the one that deserves a second look. What it means is yours to decide; the arithmetic is the filing’s own.
Growth needed to reach the peer multiple on earnings alone19.57x against a peer median of 14.59xThis is not a forecast and not a target. It is the price restated as a question: at this multiple, with the price unchanged, earnings would have to compound at this rate to arrive at what the filing’s own peer group trades on. Whether the business can do that is the argument — we are only stating what the argument is about.
EBIT × (1 − tax rate) ÷ (Net Worth + Debt − Cash)NOPAT ÷ Invested CapitalWhat the business earns on the capital actually at work in it. We do not compare this to a cost of capital: that would need a beta, an unlisted company has none, and inventing one would be theatre.
Latest full-year PAT ÷ market value₹45.47 cr ÷ ₹889.94 crThe P/E turned upside down: what each rupee of market value earns today. Set it against what you could earn elsewhere; the gap is what growth has to make up.
(Operating cash flow − capital expenditure) ÷ market value₹-10.55 cr ÷ ₹889.94 crCash left after the company pays for its own investment, against the price of the whole company. Profit can be shaped by accounting choices; this is harder to shape.
P/E ÷ trailing PAT growth (%)19.57 ÷ 9.1%PEG was designed for FORWARD growth. This one uses TRAILING growth, because that is all a prospectus gives us — and the final year before an IPO is very often the best year the company will have for a while. A low PEG here may say more about the timing of the filing than about the price. We show it because it was asked for; we show the growth denominator beside it so it cannot mislead you quietly.
Workspace
The post-issue share count is stated as “[•]” in this filing until final pricing, so we derive it: profit after tax divided by earnings per share gives the pre-issue count, and the fresh issue divided by the offer price gives the new shares. Everything below rests on that derivation. It is close, not exact.
The numbers are already loaded. Move the offer price and watch every multiple move with it. Set your own growth and margin and see what they imply two years out. These are your assumptions, not our forecast — we have no view on what this company will earn, and the moment we published one we would be doing something we are not registered to do. What we can do is put the arithmetic in front of you and get out of the way.
Price defaults to the top of the band. Margin defaults to what the company actually reported in FY26.
Projections are arithmetic on the inputs you typed. They are not a forecast, not a recommendation, and not a view on whether this offer is worth taking. Educational only.
Institutional Alpha: DRHP Deep Dive
According to the D&B Report, the Indian IT-BPM industry is projected to reach USD 315 billion in FY2026, driven by IT services, cloud migration, AI adoption, and expanding Global Capability Centres. Domestically, overall IT spending in India is forecast to reach USD 176.37 billion in 2026, expanding at 10.6% year-on-year, propelled by digital transformation across public sector infrastructure, smart city projects, and enterprise IT modernization. Concurrently, India's infrastructure and renewable energy sectors are experiencing accelerated investment, supported by government capital outlays and national solar energy targets. As an established IT infrastructure solutions and managed services provider expanding into Renewable Energy EPC, ArMee Infotech Limited is positioned to leverage rising public and private digital and green energy infrastructure outlays.
Strategic Shift to Margin-Accretive Solar EPC and BESS Operations
ArMee Infotech has expanded beyond traditional IT hardware supply by establishing a Renewable Energy vertical, generating ₹ 124.70 crore in FY26 (8.93% of revenue) with higher gross margins. The creation of specialized SPVs (ArMee MH, ArMee UP, and ArMee BESS) positions the firm to execute large-scale solar PPAs and grid-connected storage projects.
Source: p.31, p.209, p.261Capital Allocation Focused on Unlocking Bank Guarantee Capacity
Allocating ₹ 155.00 crore (51.67% of gross IPO proceeds) to create cash collateral FDs for bank guarantees directly addresses the bottleneck in bidding for large government tenders. With existing sanctioned non-fund limits of ₹ 125.40 crore nearly 100% utilized, this capital deployment will allow ArMee to scale its order book beyond the current ₹ 2,663.44 crore level.
Source: p.95, p.96, p.216Working Capital Intensity in Government IT Contracts
The business model entails significant working capital lock-up, with trade receivables (₹ 541.78 crore) and unbilled contract assets (₹ 111.13 crore) combined representing over 46% of total assets in FY26. Managing public sector collection cycles and vendor payment terms will remain critical to maintaining positive operating cash flows.
Source: p.61, p.72, p.331Shareholding, Syndicate & Leadership
Leadership & Skin in the Game
Leadership: Ridhish Kiritbhai Patel
Litigation: 1 criminal complaint against Company under Section 138 NI Act (₹ 2.78 crore cheque dishonour, stay granted by Telangana High Court); 2 civil recovery suits against Company (₹ 0.88 crore Select Technologies suit and ₹ 0.36 crore Vasava insurance suit); 4 direct tax proceedings against Company (₹ 0.30 crore); 3 indirect tax proceedings against Company (₹ 2.35 crore GST demand); 1 civil suit against Directors (₹ 0.03 crore Lendingkart deposit suit).
Auditor / RPT Flags: None; unmodified examination report on Restated Consolidated Financial Information, though CARO Annexure noted quarterly bank return differences against books of account.
Peers & Valuation
| Company | P/E | P/B | RoE | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dynacons Systems & Solutions Limited | 16.41 | — | 26.9 | 5.95 |
| Orient Technologies Limited | 243.15 | — | 1.36 | 0.53 |
| KPI Green Energy Limited | 12.77 | — | 16.14 | 18.89 |
| Oriana Power Limited | 9.62 | — | 32.72 | 13.91 |
At the ₹375 upper band, the issue is priced at 19.6x earnings — a 34% premium to the peer median of 14.6x. This is the arithmetic of the price band against the peers the filing itself lists; it is not a view on whether the offer is worth taking.
Capacity Vitals
The operating metrics that actually price this business — the ones a generic IPO page skips. Straight from the filing.
| Metric | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Order book | ₹2,663.44 crore | as of June 30, 2026 across 99 ongoing projects |
| Active projects count | 99 projects | ongoing projects across IT infrastructure and solar EPC as of June 30, 2026 |
| Customer concentration | 67.54% | share of FY26 revenue from operations contributed by top 3 clients |
| Government / PSU mix | 83.84% | share of FY26 revenue derived from government and public sector end-user projects |
| Bank guarantee utilization | 99.18% | ₹ 124.37 crore utilized out of ₹ 125.40 crore sanctioned non-fund limits as of March 31, 2026 |
| Renewable energy EPC revenue | ₹124.70 crore | FY26 revenue from newly established solar EPC vertical (8.93% of total revenue) |
Source: p.17, p.27, p.113, p.216 — Business / MD&A
🔍 Forensic Findings — What the Footnotes Say
Findings from across the filing — the notes, MD&A, related-party disclosures, contingent liabilities, CARO and litigation, alongside the risk section itself. Each carries where it was found, so you can see which were buried and which were disclosed. Findings marked derived are computed from the filed numbers against a stated rule, shown beside them.
Three customers accounted for 67.54% of consolidated FY26 revenue from operations (and 79.48% in FY24), with 83.84% of total revenue derived from Government and PSU end-user projects.
p.17, p.336Outstanding Performance Bank Guarantees stood at ₹ 74.53 crore as of March 31, 2026 (against sanctioned non-fund limits of ₹ 125.40 crore, 99.18% utilized), and the company is deploying ₹ 155.00 crore (51.67% of gross IPO proceeds) to place fixed deposits for securing further PBGs.
p.27, p.95, p.96In Fiscal 2024, Acer's bankers advanced ₹ 41.36 crore of PBG limits directly to ArMee's bankers for a ₹ 701.03 crore order without any formal agreement or fee, using third-party collateral not reflected on ArMee's balance sheet.
p.26, p.97Consolidated trade receivables reached ₹ 541.78 crore and contract assets (unbilled revenue) reached ₹ 111.13 crore in FY26, together representing 46.75% of total assets, causing operating cash flows to remain constrained.
p.61, p.72The ₹ 300.00 crore public offer consists entirely of a Fresh Issue with zero Offer for Sale by Promoters, directing all net capital into PBG margin deposits, working capital, and loan prepayment.
p.2, p.951 criminal complaint against Company under Section 138 NI Act (₹ 2.78 crore cheque dishonour, stay granted by Telangana High Court); 2 civil recovery suits against Company (₹ 0.88 crore Select Technologies suit and ₹ 0.36 crore Vasava insurance suit); 4 direct tax proceedings against Company (₹ 0.30 crore); 3 indirect tax proceedings against Company (₹ 2.35 crore GST demand); 1 civil suit against Directors (₹ 0.03 crore Lendingkart deposit suit).
p.2, p.47, p.74, p.383None; unmodified examination report on Restated Consolidated Financial Information, though CARO Annexure noted quarterly bank return differences against books of account.
p.2, p.47, p.74, p.383Short-term borrowings of ₹77.66 cr against cash of ₹21.31 cr. Debt that must be refinanced within a year is comfortable only while lenders stay comfortable.
rule: cash < 0.5x short-term debtCompany's Claims vs Reality
We stress-test each claim against the filing's own data.
Filing disclosures and D&B Report confirm FY26 consolidated revenue from operations of ₹ 1,396.63 crore and an outstanding order book of ₹ 2,663.44 crore as of June 30, 2026.
p.116, p.216In FY26, the company generated ₹ 124.70 crore from Solar EPC contracts (8.93% of revenue) and established specialized subsidiaries for PPA and BESS execution.
p.31, p.209CARO report disclosures note past short delays in PF and ESIC deposits, and an active collective grievance was registered on CPGRAMS in February 2026 regarding contractual worker benefits.
p.34, p.383Proprietary SWOT — Company-Specific
Strengths
- Established track record in executing large-scale public sector IT infrastructure and managed services projects with ₹ 1,396.63 crore FY26 revenue.
- Robust order book of ₹ 2,663.44 crore as of June 30, 2026, offering multi-year revenue visibility across 99 ongoing projects.
- Successful entry into high-growth Renewable Energy Solar EPC, PPAs, and Battery Energy Storage Systems.
Weaknesses
- High customer concentration, with top 3 clients contributing 67.54% of Fiscal 2026 consolidated revenue from operations.
- Geographic concentration with Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu accounting for 86.48% of Fiscal 2026 revenue.
Opportunities
- Accelerating government capital expenditure on smart cities, public sector digital infrastructure, and ePanchayat digitization.
- Expanding national solar targets and BESS tender pipeline in India creating strong momentum for turnkey EPC contractors.
Threats (material, not boilerplate)
- Non-availability or delay in obtaining non-fund based limits for Performance Bank Guarantees. risk_section
Why it matters: Securing PBGs (ranging 3%–10% of contract value) is mandatory for bidding on public sector IT and solar EPC contracts. - Supplier concentration with top three Technology Partners accounting for 65.84% of total hardware purchases. risk_section
Why it matters: Lack of long-term supply contracts leaves the company vulnerable to price increases or delivery delays from key vendors.
Live Subscription Status
Total subscription is fed live from the exchange data feed. The category split (QIB, NII, retail) is not carried by that feed and is added by hand where it is material — so it is shown only when we have actually verified it, rather than left as blanks.
Allotment Status
Check your allotment on the registrar's portal → Registrar: Cameo Corporate Services
Allotment is decided by the registrar, not by us and not by the exchange. In an oversubscribed retail book, allotment is by lottery, so a large application does not improve your odds beyond one lot. If money stays blocked after the refund date, the mandate expiry (06 Nov 2026) is the date to raise with your bank.
Analyst Q&A: Burning Questions
Facts from the filing. No recommendation — that layer arrives once our Research Analyst registration is live.
Why is over 51% of fresh issue proceeds being allocated to fixed deposit margins for Bank Guarantees rather than asset creation?
Public sector IT and solar EPC contracts require 3%–10% PBG submissions at project inception. Because existing bank guarantee limits of ₹ 125.40 crore are 99.18% utilized, placing ₹ 155.00 crore as FD collateral provides the essential non-fund banking headroom required to bid for and execute larger tenders in the ₹ 2,663.44 crore order book pipeline.
p.27, p.95, p.96How does management address customer concentration where top 3 clients represent over 67% of revenue?
While top 3 end-user clients contributed 67.54% of FY26 revenue, operations are spread across 99 ongoing projects in 14 states, and diversification into commercial Renewable Energy EPC and retail Experience Zones is actively reducing reliance on individual IT accounts.
p.17, p.216, p.336What drove the recovery in PAT margins in FY26 after the margin compression in FY25?
PAT margin improved in FY26 due to the higher-margin Renewable Energy EPC vertical (contributing ₹ 124.70 crore) and a favorable shift in IT project execution mix away from low-margin traded hardware sales.
p.31, p.62, p.351What was the nature of the FY24 third-party PBG arrangement involving Acer's bankers?
In FY24, principal hardware vendor Acer facilitated ₹ 41.36 crore of PBG limits for ArMee through its own bankers against a ₹ 701.03 crore order without commercial fees, relieving ArMee's banking limit constraints during that fiscal year.
p.26, p.97What Earlier Investors Paid
Early capital takes real risk and is fairly rewarded for it — a large multiple built over many years is normal. What deserves a closer look is a steep step-up in a short window: a round priced cheaply only months before the offer.
| Shareholder | Priced at | When | vs IPO price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ami Ridhish Patel and Kiritkumar Chimanbhai Patel | ₹10.00 | 2011-02-01 | 37.5x |
| An early round from roughly 16 years ago, at roughly 37.5x the offer price. A multiple of that size built over that long reflects the risk taken and the time elapsed. That is the normal reward for early capital, not a red flag. | |||
| Ami Ridhish Patel, Ridhish Kiritbhai Patel and others | ₹10.00 | 2013-01-01 | 37.5x |
| An early round from roughly 14 years ago, at roughly 37.5x the offer price. A multiple of that size built over that long reflects the risk taken and the time elapsed. That is the normal reward for early capital, not a red flag. | |||
| Ami Ridhish Patel and Ridhish Kiritbhai Patel | ₹10.00 | 2013-02-27 | 37.5x |
| An early round from roughly 14 years ago, at roughly 37.5x the offer price. A multiple of that size built over that long reflects the risk taken and the time elapsed. That is the normal reward for early capital, not a red flag. | |||
| Ami Ridhish Patel, Kiritkumar Chimanbhai Patel and others | ₹85.00 | 2018-03-30 | 4.4x |
| An early round from roughly 9 years ago, at roughly 4.4x the offer price. A multiple of that size built over that long reflects the risk taken and the time elapsed. That is the normal reward for early capital, not a red flag. | |||
| Promoters and Promoter Group Allottees | — | 2024-02-12 | — |
Prices are as stated in the filing’s allotment history and are not adjusted for later bonus issues or share splits. Where a company has issued bonus shares, the multiples above understate the true return and can even read as losses. Adjusting for that is on our list; until it is done we would rather show the raw disclosure and tell you its limits than publish a confident number that is wrong.
Lock-in Expiry Calendar
Shares held before the IPO cannot be sold immediately; they unlock in tranches. When a tranche unlocks, more shares become eligible to trade. Retail investors are frequently caught unaware by these dates. The schedule below follows from the listing date; quantities are shown only where the filing discloses them.
- 30 Mar 2028Minimum Promoters' Contribution18 months
- 30 Mar 2027Promoters Excess Shareholding6 months
- 30 Mar 2027Pre-Offer Capital6 months
- 30 Oct 2026Anchor Investors (50% Portion)30 days
- 29 Dec 2026Anchor Investors (50% Portion)90 days
An unlock means more shares may be sold — not that they will be, and not that the price will move. We state the dates; what you do with them is your call.
What Changed Between the DRHP and the RHP
Companies file a draft prospectus, then a final one. The changes in between are rarely reported, and they can be revealing.
| Item | In the DRHP | In the RHP / Addendum |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting Period Restated consolidated financial statements were updated in the RHP to incorporate full Fiscal 2026 audited performance, dropping Fiscal 2023. | Fiscals 2025, 2024, and 2023 | Fiscals 2026, 2025, and 2024 |
| Restated Financials Restated financial tables were updated to reflect Fiscal 2026 performance, showing top-line revenue growth to ₹ 1,396.63 crore and PAT expansion to ₹ 45.47 crore. | FY25 Revenue from operations of ₹ 1,313.31 crore, Restated PAT of ₹ 41.67 crore | FY26 Revenue from operations of ₹ 1,396.63 crore, Restated PAT of ₹ 45.47 crore |
| Contingent Liabilities Disclosed contingent liabilities increased to ₹ 129.23 crore as of March 31, 2026, primarily reflecting bank guarantee margin liabilities, letter of credit commitments, and pending tax proceedings. | ₹ 0.98 crore (as of March 31, 2025) | ₹ 129.23 crore (as of March 31, 2026) |
| Litigation Materiality threshold for disclosing civil and tax litigation was revised upward from ₹ 2.08 crore in DRHP to ₹ 2.29 crore in RHP following the update to average profit after tax calculations. | Materiality threshold of ₹ 2.08 crore (5% of average profit after tax across Fiscals 2023-2025) | Materiality threshold of ₹ 2.29 crore (5% of average profit after tax across Fiscals 2024-2026) |
| Risk Factors Risk factor disclosures expanded from 59 in DRHP to 60 in RHP, adding specific risk coverage regarding the newly commissioned D&B Industry Report, renewable energy project execution experience, and BESS SPV operations. | 59 risk factors | 60 risk factors |
| Statutory Dues CARO disclosures updated to include reference to a collective grievance representation registered on CPGRAMS in February 2026 concerning contractual labor statutory dues. | Minor short delays disclosed in deposit of statutory dues (PF and ESIC) for Fiscal 2025 | Minor short delays in PF/ESIC deposits in Fiscal 2026, plus CPGRAMS representation filed in February 2026 regarding contractual worker statutory compliance |
Educational, grounded entirely in the company's filings (DRHP/RHP). Not investment advice. FinMinutes does not provide buy/sell recommendations.
