Bikaji Q1 FY27: consol. revenue +12.5% YoY, but margin compression holds PAT to +1.6%

Bikaji's consolidated revenue from operations came in at ₹734.26 Cr for Q1 FY27, up 12.5% YoY from ₹652.67 Cr and up 1.9% QoQ from ₹720.88 Cr — steady topline momentum. But consolidated PAT (profit for the period, inclusive of a ₹0.67 Cr NCI loss) rose just 1.6% YoY to ₹59.47 Cr from ₹58.53 Cr, even as it climbed 6.1% QoQ from ₹56.04 Cr. Profit growth trailing revenue growth by roughly 11 points YoY is the headline: operating margin (EBITDA/revenue) came in at 13.49% versus 14.75% a year ago — a ~127bps YoY compression, though up from 12.17% in Q4 FY26. Net margin similarly slipped to 7.96% from 8.83% YoY (up from 7.59% QoQ). No exceptional items sat in either the current or year-ago quarter, so this is a clean operating-margin story, not a base-effect artifact.

The compression traces to input costs: cost of materials consumed rose to 65.6% of revenue from operations this quarter versus 62.0% a year ago, a jump the company has not offset via pricing or mix. Standalone (parent-only) profitability tells a better story — PAT of ₹64.57 Cr on revenue of ₹678.17 Cr, ahead of the consolidated figure — implying the nine consolidated subsidiaries collectively diluted group profitability, consistent with the auditors' note that unreviewed subsidiaries posted a combined ₹5.16 Cr net loss for the quarter.

The stock went into the print at ₹650.3, up 1.2% over the past month of trading.

EPS (basic, consolidated) ₹2.40 vs ₹2.39 YoY, ₹2.25 QoQ

Management's Q4 FY26 call had guided to maintaining gross margins despite inflationary pressure and targeted ~16% FY26 volume growth; this print's YoY margin compression runs counter to that stated goal, even as the sequential (QoQ) uptick in both OPM and NPM suggests some stabilization within the quarter. No management press release or post-results commentary was available in the context to corroborate volume trends or reconcile the margin miss, so the cost-pressure read rests on the P&L math alone. We found no analyst/street consensus estimates to benchmark this print against.