Bench Mark Infotech Services
A distinct read of SME-specific danger (liquidity, concentration, forensic flags) — separate from the FinMinutes Score. Higher band = more caution warranted.
- Operating cash flow collapsed from +Rs. 6.54 crore in FY25 to -Rs. 6.77 crore in FY26 despite reported PAT surging 75% to Rs. 10.22 crore.
- Trade receivables reached Rs. 54.98 crore in FY26, representing 280 receivable days and absorbing 90.83% of operational revenue.
- Pre-IPO 100:1 bonus issue of 10,765,000 shares in May 2026 expanded promoter shareholding at zero cost 4 months prior to filing.
- Demand-repayable unsecured loans from promoters represent 50.88% of total corporate debt (Rs. 1.38 crore out of Rs. 2.71 crore).
- Unpaid MSME supplier dues standing beyond six months total Rs. 1.84 crore principal plus Rs. 0.18 crore interest.
- Creditor write-backs accounted for Rs. 2.93 crore of Other Income in FY26 (28.72% of PAT).
Educational risk signal grounded in the filing — not a buy/sell call.
First time with SME IPOs? Read the SME IPO guide and the risks before applying.
FinMinutes Deep Business Model & Edge
Bench Mark Infotech Services Limited is an integrated IT and digital infrastructure solutions provider engaged in design, supply, installation, commissioning, maintenance of networks, communication systems, surveillance, fibre optic infrastructure, data storage, and data centre solutions.
What this company actually does — full breakdown ▾
Incorporated in 2007 and headquartered in Kolkata, West Bengal, Bench Mark Infotech Services Limited is an integrated IT and digital infrastructure solutions provider with over 19 years of experience. The company operates across three key business verticals: Integrated IT solutions (supply, installation, and commissioning of IT infrastructure, networking, audio-visual systems, safety/security, and data centre solutions), Annual Maintenance Contracts (AMCs) and facility support services, and Fibre Optic Infrastructure Solutions (leasing/renting fibre network capacity and trenching/ducting services). The business model is primarily order-driven and tender-based, operating through competitive bidding for government departments, public sector undertakings, educational institutions, and private clients. In FY26, Integrated IT solutions contributed 83.35% (Rs. 50.4521 crore), Fibre Optic Infrastructure Solutions contributed 12.95% (Rs. 7.8397 crore), and AMCs contributed 3.69% (Rs. 2.2358 crore) to revenue from operations. Geographic revenue is heavily concentrated in Eastern India, with Bihar contributing 43.30%, Odisha 20.16%, West Bengal 16.58%, and Jharkhand 13.20% of FY26 revenue. The top 10 customers accounted for 94.19% of FY26 revenue, with government-sector clients generating 73.10% of total revenue. As a service provider, the company does not own manufacturing plants or machinery, procuring hardware/software components from OEMs and authorized vendors.
Empanelment with BSNL as National Level System Integrator and RailTel Corporation as Business Partner, integrated under-one-roof service capabilities, long-standing customer relationships with repeat order flow from government/PSU entities, and established presence in Eastern India.
The Offer
Follow the Money — Use of Proceeds
- Funding the working capital requirements of our company — ₹30.00 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 4 live components.
88% of the designed weighting had real data behind it on this issue. Not yet scored here: Filing Integrity. 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 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) | 60.5276 | 50.0385 | 34.0951 |
| Net Profit (₹ Cr) | 10.218 | 5.8304 | 1.4802 |
| PAT Margin | 16.88% | 11.65% | 4.34% |
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) | ↑ 21.0% | Revenue increased due to higher execution of IT infrastructure and digital infrastructure projects, higher order inflows, and expansion of business operations. | Structural |
| Purchases of Stock in Trade (FY26 vs FY25) | ↓ 15.3% | Purchases of stock in trade decreased due to a project mix shift toward higher service-oriented, system integration, and AMC projects requiring lower traded material procurement. | Structural |
| Direct Expenses (FY26 vs FY25) | ↑ 89.4% | Direct expenses jumped due to increased execution of service-heavy projects requiring higher manpower, installation, commissioning, and logistics costs. | Structural |
| Employee Benefits Expense (FY26 vs FY25) | ↑ 18.4% | Employee benefit expenses rose due to hiring additional technical, project execution, and marketing staff to support business expansion. | Structural |
| Finance Costs (FY26 vs FY25) | ↑ 33.5% | Finance costs increased due to higher bank guarantee and credit facility utilization for Earnest Money Deposits (EMD) and Performance Bank Guarantees (PBG) for government tenders. | Structural |
| Other Expenses (FY26 vs FY25) | ↑ 60.6% | Other expenses increased due to operational expansion, higher travelling, office, legal, rent, and project execution costs across regional sites. | Structural |
| Profit After Tax (FY26 vs FY25) | ↑ 75.3% | Net profit surged due to strategic prioritization of higher-margin government contracts, reduced participation in low-margin bids, and improved project execution efficiency. | Structural |
| Trade Receivables (FY26 vs FY25) | ↑ 44.8% | Trade receivables expanded due to milestone-based government project billing and heavy revenue concentration during the fourth quarter. | Structural |
| Inventories (FY26 vs FY25) | ↑ 167.0% | Inventories built up due to advance procurement of IT materials and equipment for upcoming government project execution schedules. | Structural |
| Operating Cash Flow (FY26 vs FY25) | ↓ 203.5% | Operating cash flow turned negative at -Rs. 6.7652 crore due to working capital absorption in trade receivables (Rs. 17.4352 crore) from Q4 government billing concentration. | Structural |
| Short-Term Borrowings (FY26 vs FY25) | ↑ 153.9% | Short-term debt increased due to higher working capital borrowing drawn to fund project execution, material procurement, and EMD/PBG commitments. | Structural |
| Revenue from Operations (FY25 vs FY24) | ↑ 46.8% | Revenue grew due to higher execution of IT and digital infrastructure projects for government departments and PSUs, increased order inflows, and new client acquisition. | Structural |
| Purchases of Stock in Trade (FY25 vs FY24) | ↑ 60.4% | Purchases of stock in trade increased due to a higher volume of government project execution requiring procurement of networking equipment, IT hardware, and surveillance systems. | Structural |
| Employee Benefits Expense (FY25 vs FY24) | ↓ 19.7% | Employee benefit expenses decreased due to employee resignations during the year and a reduction in director remuneration. | Structural |
| Finance Costs (FY25 vs FY24) | ↑ 59.0% | Finance costs increased due to higher bank credit facility utilization for EMD and Performance Bank Guarantees for government tenders. | Structural |
| Other Expenses (FY25 vs FY24) | ↓ 27.4% | Other expenses declined due to administrative cost optimization and non-recurrence of one-off operational expenses incurred in FY24. | Structural |
| Profit After Tax (FY25 vs FY24) | ↑ 293.9% | Net profit expanded nearly fourfold due to prioritizing higher-margin government projects, improved project mix, and cost management. | Structural |
| Trade Receivables (FY25 vs FY24) | ↑ 48.3% | Trade receivables grew in line with top-line expansion and execution of government projects with milestone-based payment documentation. | Structural |
| Operating Cash Flow (FY25 vs FY24) | ↑ 34.4% | Operating cash flow increased due to higher operating profits before working capital changes and extended trade payable credit terms. | Structural |
| Short-Term Borrowings (FY25 vs FY24) | ↓ 44.9% | Short-term borrowings decreased due to lower bank overdraft utilization funded by improved customer cash collections. | Structural |
Headwinds
- High reliance on government and PSU contracts awarded through competitive bidding tenders company persistent
A significant portion of revenue (73.10% in FY26) is derived from government and PSU tenders, exposing operations to tender timing delays, margin erosion from lower-bid competition, and project cancellation risks. - Geographic concentration of operations in Bihar, Odisha, and West Bengal company persistent
Deriving 80.04% of FY26 revenue from Bihar (43.30%), Odisha (20.16%), and West Bengal (16.58%) exposes business performance to regional economic, social, or public budgetary shifts. - Shortage of skilled talent in cloud, AI, and cybersecurity escalating industry wage costs sector persistent
Industry-wide scarcity of certified cybersecurity, cloud, and DevOps specialists elevates labor costs and delays project delivery schedules across IT service providers. - Extended working capital cycle and trade receivable delays from government clients company persistent
Trade receivables standing at Rs. 54.9796 crore (280 receivable days in FY26) due to government milestone certification processes lock up operating capital and require short-term debt financing.
Tailwinds
- Government impetus on digital infrastructure, smart cities, and optical fibre expansions macro
National initiatives like Digital India, BharatNet, PM Gati Shakti, and data centre expansion drive sustained demand for integrated IT networking and optical fibre infrastructure. - Empanelment with BSNL as National System Integrator and RailTel as Business Partner company
Strategic partner empanelments with national telecom PSUs enable participation in large-scale telecom, networking, and digital infrastructure tenders across India.
Movements the filing does not explain
- Creditor Write-Back Drive in FY26 Other Income FY26 — In FY26, Other Income expanded to Rs. 3.4645 crore (5.41% of total income) driven by Rs. 2.9347 crore in creditor write-backs. While MD&A notes these were long-outstanding non-moving vendor balances written back due to incomplete, unfulfilled, or defective services, the filing does not detail specific counterparty allocations or potential vendor dispute risks.
A material movement that management does not address is not a finding on its own. It is a question the filing leaves open, and it is recorded here as one.
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 initiated2026-10-01
- Pre Application Start2026-09-24
- Bidding Start2026-09-25
- Bidding End2026-09-29
- Allotment Process Start2026-09-30
- Allotment Finalization2026-10-01
- Listing Day2026-10-05
- Mandate End2026-11-10
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 | 60.53 | 50.04 | 34.10 |
| Other Income | 3.46 | 0.76 | 0.67 |
| Total Income | 63.99 | 50.80 | 34.76 |
| Purchases of Stock-in-Trade | 22.32 | 26.36 | 16.44 |
| Changes in Inventories | -0.67 | -0.18 | -0.05 |
| Employee Benefit Expense | 3.19 | 2.69 | 3.35 |
| Finance Cost | 0.58 | 0.43 | 0.27 |
| Depreciation & Amortisation | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.08 |
| Other Expenses | 24.85 | 13.48 | 12.61 |
| Total Expenses | 50.36 | 42.85 | 32.70 |
| Profit Before Exceptional Items and Tax | 13.64 | 7.94 | 2.06 |
| Profit Before Tax | 13.64 | 7.94 | 2.06 |
| Tax Expense | 3.42 | 2.11 | 0.58 |
| Profit After Tax | 10.22 | 5.83 | 1.48 |
| EPS - Basic | 9.40 | 5.36 | 1.36 |
| EPS - Diluted | 9.40 | 5.36 | 1.36 |
Balance SheetWhat the company owns, owes, and is worth on paper.
| Balance Sheet (₹ Cr) | FY26 | FY25 | FY24 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Share Capital | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
| Reserves & Surplus | 26.44 | 16.23 | 10.40 |
| Net Worth | 26.55 | 16.33 | 10.50 |
| Long-term Borrowings | 0.73 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Short-term Borrowings | 1.98 | 0.78 | 1.41 |
| Total Borrowings | 2.71 | 0.78 | 1.41 |
| Trade Payables | 34.48 | 35.25 | 19.70 |
| Current Liabilities | 46.46 | 43.76 | 28.56 |
| Total Liabilities | 74.05 | 60.39 | 39.33 |
| Property, Plant & Equipment | 0.93 | 0.16 | 0.19 |
| Capital Work in Progress | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Intangible Assets | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Investments | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.74 |
| Inventories | 1.07 | 0.40 | 0.22 |
| Trade Receivables | 54.98 | 37.96 | 25.59 |
| Cash & Equivalents | 6.47 | 12.15 | 6.79 |
| Current Assets | 64.04 | 52.15 | 33.95 |
| Total Assets | 74.05 | 60.39 | 39.33 |
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 | -6.77 | 6.54 | 4.87 |
| Capital Expenditure | -1.21 | -1.17 | -0.02 |
| Net Cash from Investing Activities | -1.06 | -0.92 | 0.19 |
| Net Cash from Financing Activities | 1.67 | -0.84 | -3.22 |
| Net Change in Cash | -6.15 | 4.78 | 1.84 |
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 (%) | 22.4 | 16.6 | 6.9 |
| EBIT Margin (%) | 22.2 | 16.5 | 6.7 |
| PAT Margin (%) | 16.9 | 11.7 | 4.3 |
| Return on Equity (%) | 38.5 | 35.7 | 14.1 |
| Return on Capital Employed (%) | 48.6 | 49 | 19.6 |
| Return on Assets (%) | 13.8 | 9.7 | 3.8 |
| Leverage | |||
| Debt / Equity (x) | 0.1 | 0.05 | 0.13 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA (x) | -0.26 | -1.35 | -2.23 |
| Interest Coverage (x) | 24.56 | 19.32 | 8.56 |
| Liquidity | |||
| Current Ratio (x) | 1.38 | 1.19 | 1.19 |
| Quick Ratio (x) | 1.36 | 1.18 | 1.18 |
| Efficiency | |||
| Asset Turnover (x) | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.87 |
| Receivable Days | 332 | 277 | 274 |
| Inventory Days | 6 | 3 | 2 |
| Payable Days | 208 | 257 | 211 |
| Cash Conversion Cycle (days) | 130 | 23 | 65 |
| Quality of Earnings | |||
| Operating Cash Flow / PAT (x) | -0.66 | 1.12 | 3.29 |
| Accruals Ratio (%) | 22.9 | -1.2 | -8.6 |
| Capex / Depreciation (x) | 12.91 | 20.76 | 0.32 |
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) | 16.9% | 11.7% | 4.3% |
| Asset Turnover (Revenue / Assets) | 0.82x | 0.83x | 0.87x |
| Equity Multiplier (Assets / Net Worth) | 2.79x | 3.7x | 3.74x |
| = Return on Equity | 38.5% | 35.7% | 14.1% |
| Tax Burden (PAT / PBT) | 0.75x | 0.73x | 0.72x |
| Interest Burden (PBT / EBIT) | 0.96x | 0.95x | 0.88x |
| Operating Margin (EBIT / Revenue) | 23.5% | 16.7% | 6.8% |
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.
- In FY26 the company reported a profit of 10.22 cr while operating cash flow was NEGATIVE at -6.77 cr. Reported earnings did not convert into cash. This is the single divergence most worth understanding in any set of accounts, and the filing is the place to look for why.
- Receivable days rose from 274 in FY24 to 332 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.
- Between FY24 and FY26 revenue grew 78% while profit grew 590%. Profit expanding at several times the rate of revenue is not automatically a concern — operating leverage does exactly this — but it is worth confirming from the filing whether the gap comes from genuine margin expansion or from one-off items.
- Interest coverage was 24.56x in FY26. Debt servicing is comfortably covered by operating profit.
Forensic ModelsBeneish, Altman and Piotroski — 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) | 1.197 | 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 | 0.916 | 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 | 1.21 | 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) | 2.865 | 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 | 1.433 | 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 | 0.879 | Above 1 means leverage rose. Debt covenants create pressure to hit numbers. |
| TATA Total Accruals to Total Assets (PAT - CashFromOperations) / TotalAssets | 0.2293 | 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″ = 7.64 · 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 | 0.237 |
| X2 — Retained Earnings / Total Assets | 0.357 |
| X3 — EBIT / Total Assets | 0.192 |
| X4 — Net Worth / Total Liabilities | 0.359 |
| Z″ = 3.25 + 6.56·X1 + 3.26·X2 + 6.72·X3 + 1.05·X4 | 7.64 |
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
The Final-Year Check
oursNot from any textbook. The hockey stick in the last year before a filing is the oldest pattern in this business, and nobody publishes it. So we measure it: how the final disclosed year compares with the years behind it. Real acceleration looks exactly the same on the page as a flattering one — which is precisely why it is worth naming rather than assuming either way.
- Cash conversion fell sharply in the final year: operating cash flow was -0.66x profit in FY26, against 1.12x in FY25. Profit rose; the cash behind it did not follow at the same rate.
Ratios Nobody Prints
- Contingent liabilities / Net worth: 0%
Contingent liabilities of 0.00 cr against a net worth of 26.55 cr — 0% 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: 4.3%
4.3% 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: 3.27x
Short-term borrowings of 1.98 cr against cash of 6.47 cr. Debt that must be refinanced within a year is only comfortable while lenders stay comfortable. - Promoter remuneration / PAT: 12.9%
Managerial remuneration to the promoter group was 1.32 cr against a profit of 10.22 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.
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 Worth10.22 ÷ 26.55What 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)14.22 ÷ (26.55 + 2.71) = 14.22 ÷ 29.26Return on ALL the capital in the business, borrowed as well as owned. Unlike ROE, it cannot be flattered by taking on debt.
EBITDA ÷ Revenue14.31 ÷ 60.53Operating profitability before the effects of debt, tax and depreciation. What the business earns from the act of trading.
Total Borrowings ÷ Net Worth2.71 ÷ 26.55How much the company has borrowed against what it owns. High is not automatically bad — ask whether the borrowing is being serviced comfortably.
EBIT ÷ Finance Cost14.22 ÷ 0.58How 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(54.98 ÷ 60.53) × 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 + 332 − 208How 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 ÷ PAT-6.77 ÷ 10.22Did 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(10.22 − -6.77) ÷ 74.05 = 16.98 ÷ 74.05The 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.
Workspace
The interactive workspace is withheld on this issue. Every output in it — market capitalisation, enterprise value, every multiple, the reverse discounted cash flow — rests on the share count, and on this filing that count does not agree with itself. Below is each route we compute it by and what each one produces. A workspace built on the wrong one would be wrong in a way that looks entirely plausible, so we publish the disagreement instead.
| How the count is reached | Shares | Against the others |
|---|---|---|
| pre-issue shares as stated in the capital structure | 1.09 cr | agrees |
| paid-up share capital divided by face value | 0.01 cr | does not agree |
| profit after tax divided by basic EPS | 1.09 cr | agrees |
| net worth divided by net asset value per share | 1.09 cr | agrees |
| post-issue count as stated | 1.43 cr | agrees |
The count implied by earnings per share sits 0% below the other routes. That is the ordinary consequence of earnings per share being struck on the weighted average number of shares during the year rather than the number at the year end, and it points to shares having been issued partway through the period. It is not a disagreement about the share count.
The share count does not reconcile across independent routes. Every figure derived from it is withheld until the filing is re-read.
Institutional Alpha: DRHP Deep Dive
Dressed Bride Pattern: CFO Collapses to -Rs. 6.77 Crore While PAT Surges 75%
In FY26, Bench Mark Infotech reported a 75.25% increase in restated PAT to Rs. 10.2180 crore, but operating cash flow turned deeply negative at -Rs. 6.7652 crore. Working capital was heavily absorbed by Rs. 54.9796 crore in trade receivables (280 receivable days vs 216 days in FY24), representing 90.83% of annual revenue.
Source: p.34, 35, 37, 216, 218Creditor Write-Backs Contributed 28.72% of FY26 Net Profit
Other Income in FY26 expanded to Rs. 3.4645 crore, including Rs. 2.9347 crore of old non-moving creditor write-backs. This non-cash, non-operating income accounted for 28.72% of reported PAT (Rs. 10.2180 crore).
Source: p.58, 213Demand-Repayable Promoter Debt Represents 50.88% of Total Borrowings
Unsecured loans from promoters Vineet Kumar Gupta (Rs. 0.6560 crore) and Juli Gupta (Rs. 0.7210 crore) total Rs. 1.3770 crore out of total corporate borrowings of Rs. 2.7064 crore in FY26. All promoter loans are repayable on demand, presenting a liquidity risk if recalled.
Source: p.38, 67Shareholding, Syndicate & Leadership
Leadership & Skin in the Game
Leadership: Vineet Kumar Gupta
Litigation: Material civil arbitration proceeding Bench Mark Infotech Services Limited vs. Shani Peripherals Private Limited involving Rs. 0.6554 crore. Direct and indirect tax proceedings involving Rs. 0.1934 crore across 5 cases.
Peers & Valuation
| Company | P/E | P/B | RoE | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dynacons Systems & Solutions Ltd | 26.55 | — | 26.9 | 5.95 |
| Xtranet Technologies Limited | 50.87 | — | 30.01 | 11.15 |
| Esconet Technologies Limited | 15.66 | — | 7.68 | 1.74 |
At the ₹110 upper band, the issue is priced at 11.7x earnings — a 56% discount to the peer median of 26.6x. 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.
🔍 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.
On May 8, 2026 (4 months prior to RHP filing), the company issued 10,765,000 bonus shares in a 100:1 ratio at Rs. 0.00 per share to promoters Vineet Kumar Gupta and Juli Gupta. This expanded pre-issue capital from 107,650 shares to 10,872,650 shares at zero cost, significantly lowering insider average acquisition cost ahead of the IPO.
p.76, 77In FY26, restated PAT grew 75.25% to Rs. 10.2180 crore (up 590% over FY24 PAT of Rs. 1.4802 crore). However, Operating Cash Flow (CFO) collapsed to -Rs. 6.7652 crore in FY26 (from +Rs. 6.5391 crore in FY25), driven by trade receivables reaching Rs. 54.9796 crore (representing 280 receivable days and 90.83% of annual revenue) and inventories increasing 167% to Rs. 1.0694 crore, funded by short-term borrowings of Rs. 1.9761 crore and trade payables of Rs. 34.4828 crore.
p. 34, 35, 37, 216 and 1 moreIn FY26, Other Income expanded to Rs. 3.4645 crore, driven by Rs. 2.9347 crore in creditor write-backs from old, non-moving vendor balances. This non-operating credit accounted for 28.72% of restated PAT (Rs. 10.2180 crore).
p.58, 213Unsecured loans from promoters (Vineet Kumar Gupta Rs. 0.6560 crore and Juli Gupta Rs. 0.7210 crore) total Rs. 1.3770 crore, representing 50.88% of total corporate debt (Rs. 2.7064 crore), all repayable on demand.
p.38, 67Overdue principal dues owed to MSME suppliers stood at Rs. 1.8395 crore alongside accrued unpaid interest of Rs. 0.1793 crore as at March 31, 2026. Additionally, the company disclosed instances of administrative delays in filing ESIC and TDS returns.
p.39, 85, 174In FY26, 93.24% of operational revenue was concentrated in four Eastern Indian states: Bihar (43.30%), Odisha (20.16%), West Bengal (16.58%), and Jharkhand (13.20%). Additionally, top 10 customers accounted for 94.19% of FY26 revenue, with government/PSU entities generating 73.10%.
p.26, 29, 203, 204In FY26, Bench Mark Infotech generated Rs. 60.5276 crore in revenue from operations and Rs. 10.2180 crore in net profit with a net worth of Rs. 26.5511 crore. Despite meeting scale parameters for a mainboard listing, the company selected the NSE Emerge SME platform.
p.2, 34, 35The peer comparison set includes mainboard-listed Dynacons Systems & Solutions Ltd (P/E 26.55x) and Xtranet Technologies Limited (P/E 50.87x) alongside SME-listed Esconet Technologies Limited (P/E 15.66x), yielding a peer median P/E of 26.55x.
p.99, 103, 104, 105Material civil arbitration proceeding Bench Mark Infotech Services Limited vs. Shani Peripherals Private Limited involving Rs. 0.6554 crore. Direct and indirect tax proceedings involving Rs. 0.1934 crore across 5 cases.
p. 38, 39, 62, 194 and 1 moreOperating cash flow was negative ₹6.77 cr in FY26 while the company reported a profit after tax of ₹10.22 cr. Profit that does not arrive as cash has to be funded from somewhere else.
rule: CFO<0 & PAT>0Revenue grew, the related-party share of it grew, and operating cash flow fell, all in FY26. No one of these is evidence on its own. Together they are the pattern worth understanding before the other numbers on this page.
rule: sales↑ + RPT share↑ + CFO↓Company's Claims vs Reality
We stress-test each claim against the filing's own data.
Restated trade receivables expanded to Rs. 54.98 crore in FY26 (280 days), absorbing operating cash flow (-Rs. 6.77 crore in FY26), which confirms the heavy working capital lock-up inherent in government milestone billing.
p.35, 89, 90, 216, 218Restated PAT margin expanded to 16.88% in FY26 (from 11.65% in FY25), but Rs. 2.9347 crore of Other Income consisted of non-operating creditor write-backs, indicating that operational profit expansion was partially inflated by liability write-downs.
p.34, 58, 213Government and PSU contracts accounted for 73.10% of FY26 revenue, validating partner order flow, but high customer concentration (top 10 clients at 94.19%) exposes operations to tender delays and payment certification bottlenecks.
p.26, 127, 203Allotment Status
Check your allotment on the registrar's portal → Registrar: KFin Technologies
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 (10 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.
How are the fresh issue IPO proceeds allocated across working capital requirements and general corporate purposes?
Fresh issue proceeds are allocated as: Rs. 30.0000 crore for funding incremental working capital requirements, and the balance for General Corporate Purposes (capped at 25%).
p.89, 90What is the promoters' shareholding pre-issue, and what is their acquisition history?
Promoters Vineet Kumar Gupta and Juli Gupta hold 99.99% pre-issue equity (10,765,000 shares out of 10,872,650 pre-issue shares). Pre-issue shareholding was expanded via a 100:1 bonus issue of 10,765,000 shares in May 2026 at Rs. 0.00 per share.
p.76, 77, 78, 83What are the key related-party transactions, promoter loans, and commercial dependencies?
Sales of services/goods to group entities (Bizarre Infratech, Victrix Tradelink, Leksa Lighting) totaled Rs. 2.5725 crore in FY26. Promoter remuneration totaled Rs. 1.3200 crore (Vineet Kumar Gupta Rs. 1.02 cr, Juli Gupta Rs. 0.30 cr). Unsecured loans from promoters total Rs. 1.3770 crore (50.88% of total debt of Rs. 2.7064 crore), all repayable on demand. Promoters provided personal guarantees covering credit facilities.
p.38, 60, 67, 69, 70, 71How did operating cash flow perform relative to restated net profits over FY24 to FY26?
Restated PAT grew from Rs. 1.4802 crore in FY24 to Rs. 5.8304 crore in FY25 and Rs. 10.2180 crore in FY26. However, Operating Cash Flow (CFO) turned deeply negative in FY26 at -Rs. 6.7652 crore (down from +Rs. 6.5391 crore in FY25 and +Rs. 4.8662 crore in FY24) due to trade receivables swelling to Rs. 54.9796 crore (280 receivable days).
p.34, 35, 37, 216, 218What secretarial, statutory compliance, litigation, and tax findings exist for the company?
The company has 51 employees with an attrition rate of 31.46%. Outstanding dues to MSME suppliers stand at Rs. 1.8395 crore principal plus Rs. 0.1793 crore interest. Material civil arbitration of Rs. 0.6554 crore against Shani Peripherals and direct/indirect tax cases of Rs. 0.1934 crore are pending. Statutory auditor M/s Goyal Goyal & Co., Chartered Accountants, served continuously without auditor change.
p.34, 39, 85, 153, 174, 194, 221What are the application lot terms, retail ticket requirements, market maker details, and exit constraints for public investors?
The offer is listed on NSE Emerge with a minimum retail application requirement of 2 lots. Trading occurs strictly in standardized market lots, and because lots are indivisible, partial exit or fractional lot trading is impossible. Giriraj Stock Broking Private Limited is the Market Maker with 193,200 reserved shares (5.01%) and a mandatory 3-year obligation period. Standard SME 5% price circuit limits apply.
p.2, 11, 54, 74, 256What 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vineet Kumar Gupta & Nand Rani Gupta (Initial MOA Subscribers) | ₹10.00 | 2007-01-09 | 11.0x |
| An early round from roughly 20 years ago, at roughly 11.0x 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. | |||
| Vineet Kumar Gupta & Juli Gupta | ₹20.00 | 2012-03-31 | 5.5x |
| An early round from roughly 15 years ago, at roughly 5.5x 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. | |||
| Vivek Prasad, Akshay Kumar, Anand Gupta, Juli Gupta, Vineet Kumar Gupta | ₹20.00 | 2014-03-28 | 5.5x |
| An early round from roughly 13 years ago, at roughly 5.5x 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. | |||
| Vineet Kumar Gupta & Juli Gupta | — | 2026-05-08 | — |
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.
- 05 Oct 2029promoter3 years2,854,530 shares (20% of total)
- 05 Oct 2027promoter and public1 year
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.
Educational, grounded entirely in the company's filings (DRHP/RHP). Not investment advice. FinMinutes does not provide buy/sell recommendations.