Patel Retail Q1 FY27: revenue soars 70% YoY, margin slips to 6.1%, PAT growth overstated
PAT +37.43% YoY · revenue +69.64% · margins compressing
₹309.54 Cr
+69.64% YoY
₹9.52 Cr
+37.43% YoY
3.07%
-0.7pp YoY
₹2.85
Patel Retail's standalone Q1 FY27 (quarter ended June 30, 2026) revenue rose 69.6% YoY to ₹309.54 Cr (from ₹182.45 Cr), comfortably outrunning management's FY27 guidance of "20% or higher" top-line growth, though it fell 7.4% QoQ from a seasonally stronger ₹334.16 Cr in Q4 FY26. Reported PAT of ₹9.52 Cr is up 37.4% YoY, but this headline overstates underlying profitability: the company changed its depreciation method from written-down-value to straight-line this quarter, cutting D&A to ₹4.37 Cr from an estimated ₹6.07 Cr under the old method and lifting PBT by roughly ₹1.71 Cr (13% of reported PBT). Adjusting for that one-time accounting benefit, PAT growth is closer to ~19% YoY — a materially different, more modest picture than the reported number suggests, and one that trails the revenue growth rate by a wide margin.
Q1 FY-2027 vs prior quarters
The operating margin (EBITDA excluding other income, over revenue) compressed to 6.13% from 8.30% a year ago, even as it improved sequentially from 5.19% in Q4 FY26; net margin similarly slipped to 3.07% from 3.78% YoY. This misses management's own guided EBITDA range of 8-9%. The compression traces to the gross-margin line: combined cost of materials and stock-in-trade purchases, net of inventory movement, rose to ~83.7% of revenue from ~78.6% a year ago — a smaller favourable inventory drawdown this quarter (₹11.66 Cr released vs ₹26.37 Cr released a year ago) meant less cushion against input costs, consistent with the input-cost-pressure headwinds flagged for smallcap retailers this cycle. Finance costs fell 34.9% YoY to ₹2.50 Cr, helped by IPO-proceeds-funded debt repayment (₹59 Cr utilised per the fund-deviation statement), a partial offset to the gross-margin drag.
The stock went into the print at ₹228.8, up 1.6% over the past month of trading.
Management provided guidance for continued double-digit growth, targeting 20% or higher for FY27, with a focus on both top-line expansion and bottom-line improvement. They anticipate EBITDA margins to be in the range of 8-9% going forward. Strategic priorities include expanding the retail footprint with 8-10 new stores
— This quarter: missed
No street/consensus estimates for this specific quarter could be located, so vsStreet is marked unknown. Management gave no fresh press-release commentary alongside this filing (only the board-outcome letter and results), so there is no quote to reconcile against the numbers. The quarter's other developments — a 53rd R Mart store opened in Uran, Mumbai (Jul 25) and expanded distribution of the 'Indian Chaska' private-label brand into Madhya Pradesh (Aug 4), plus an ₹80 lakh investment in a new curry-powder line (Jul 23) — track management's stated priorities of store expansion (8-10 stores/year target) and private-label growth, though revenue growth this quarter already runs well ahead of the unit-expansion pace, suggesting same-store/like-for-like gains are doing much of the work. EPS grew only 2.5% YoY (₹2.85 vs ₹2.78) despite the 37.4% reported PAT growth, reflecting equity dilution from the August 2025 IPO (paid-up capital up 34.2% YoY to ₹33.40 Cr).
W1
OPM trajectory toward management's guided 8-9% EBITDA range — Q1 FY27 at 6.13%, still ~200-290bps short
W2
Adjusted (ex-depreciation-change) PAT growth run-rate — ~19% YoY this quarter vs the 20%+ FY27 bottom-line target management guided to
W3
New-store cadence vs the 8-10 stores/year guidance — track cumulative store count through FY27 after the 53rd store opening
Standalone only (no consolidated section in filing); figures converted from ₹ Lakhs to ₹ Crore (÷100); no exceptional items (row 4 nil). PBT includes a ~₹1.71 Cr one-time benefit from a depreciation-method change (WDV→SLM effective this quarter) — adjusted for this, PAT YoY growth is ~19% vs 37.4% reported. Company's own note flags that the YoY comparison quarter (Jun-2025) predates a Q3 FY26 lease-modification (ROU asset recognition), so YoY depreciation/finance-cost/rent comparisons are not fully like-for-like.