Happiest Minds shares jump over 4% after Q1 net profit jumps 12% YoY
The Bengaluru-headquartered digital transformation company reported a total income of ₹579.93 crore for the quarter, marking a 1.7% quarter-on-quarter (QoQ) and 18.5% year-on-year (YoY) increase. Operating revenues in US dollar terms stood at $64.4 million, reflecting a 2.3% QoQ and 15.9% YoY growth.
Happiest Minds' EBITDA came in at ₹124.05 crore, up 12.9% QoQ and 6.3% YoY, with an EBITDA margin of 21.4%. Profit after tax (PAT) rose sharply to ₹57.13 crore, up 68% sequentially and 12% over the same quarter last year. Adjusted PAT, excluding non-cash and exceptional items, stood at ₹68.62 crore, translating to 19.1% sequential growth.
Commenting on the results, Chairman & Chief Mentor Ashok Soota said the company's strong start to the fiscal year reflects customer confidence and its capabilities in digital transformation. He added that Happiest Minds is focused on harnessing technologies like generative AI to fuel long-term growth.
Co-Chairman & CEO Joseph Anantharaju noted that the Q1 momentum was driven by strategic digital transformations across key sectors including GenAI, Data, and Cybersecurity.
The company's headcount stood at 6,523 as of June 30, 2025, with 17 new client additions during the quarter. Utilization improved to 78.9% from 77.3% in the previous quarter, while attrition ticked up slightly to 18.2%.
Key highlights: Revenue: ₹579.93 crore, up 18.5% YoY
EBITDA: ₹124.05 crore, margin at 21.4%
PAT: ₹57.13 crore, up 12% YoY
Adjusted EPS: ₹4.55
Clients: 285 as of Q1FY26, with 17 added during the quarter
Employee count: 6,523
Outlook:
The management reaffirmed its focus on double-digit growth for FY26 and emphasized continued investments in AI capabilities and sales engine expansion.
Disclaimer:
This article contains forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ due to various factors including market conditions, regulatory changes, and company performance. Investors are advised to exercise caution and consult financial advisors before making investment decisions.
Ahmedabad Plane Crash
Aditya Bhagchandani serves as the Senior Editor and Writer at Business Upturn, where he leads coverage across the Business, Finance, Corporate, and Stock Market segments. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to journalistic integrity, he not only contributes insightful articles but also oversees editorial direction for the reporting team.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
20 hours ago
- USA Today
Ghosts of retailers' past: See what dead stores Spirit Halloween is reviving
Shoppers may find it spooky when they see their favorite Joann Fabrics, Big Lots or Forever 21 store is now a Spirit Halloween. According to Spirit Halloween's website, the Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey-headquartered company has "more than 1,500 seasonal locations in strip centers and malls across North America." Hundreds of these incoming stores will occupy spaces previously used by retailers that have since gone bankrupt, including Big Lots, Forever 21, Joann Fabrics, Party City, Circuit City, K-Mart and Rite Aid. Spirit's stores open at the end of the summer, while its online store is available year-round, according to the company. USA TODAY contacted Spirit Halloween on Saturday, Aug. 2, but has not received a response. Here are the bankrupt retailers whose spaces are being revived by Spirit Halloween. What bankrupt retailers will have spaces revived by Spirit Halloween? According to Spirit Halloween's location map, which shows incoming stores slated to open either in August or beyond, these are some notable bankrupt companies that will have their former spaces occupied by "the largest Halloween retailer in the country." How to check for upcoming Spirit Halloween locations Those looking to check whether a Spirit Halloween is opening in their area can visit the retailer's map, enter their city or postal code, and see where the nearest location is. The company announced in June that it is seeking 50,000 seasonal employees to support more than 1,500 retail locations it expects to open this year. Contributing: Mike Snider and Gabe Hauari, USA TODAY
Newsweek
a day ago
- Newsweek
Legal Storm Hits America's Most Popular Real Estate Website
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. America's most popular real estate website, Zillow, has been hit by a new lawsuit this week as rival platform CoStar Group claims it has illegally used tens of thousands of its watermarked images. It is the second legal battle facing Zillow this summer, after New York-headquartered real estate brokerage Compass filed an antitrust lawsuit against it in late June alleging that Zillow's new listing policy restricts competition and harms consumers. While the two cases are very different, Ladah Law Firm's trial attorney Ramzy Ladah told Newsweek that the two lawsuits converge on the same question: "How much power a dominant digital portal may wield over the lifeblood of residential real estate, which is timely, accurate listing data, and the media that sells it?" One lawsuit essentially asks whether a platform can police distribution rules in a way that disadvantages rivals; the other asks whether that same platform can lawfully display content it did not license. "Together, they test the outer limits of platform control in housing," Ladah said. Newsweek contacted Zillow for comment by email on Wednesday but did not receive a response. What Are the Lawsuits About? CoStar Group, which owns the website LoopNet, and filed its lawsuit against Zillow on Wednesday, accusing the company of posting 46,979 of their copyrighted real estate listing photos without their permission. According to the lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Manhattan, Zillow's use of CoStar Group's images undermined its ability to stand out against competitors, particularly for rental units. "Zillow's theft of tens of thousands of CoStar Group's copyrighted photographs is nothing short of outrageous," Andy Florance, CoStar Group's founder and CEO, said in a press release on Wednesday. "Zillow is profiting from decades of CoStar Group work and the billions of dollars we have invested. Even worse, Zillow is magnifying its infringement on Redfin and he added. "If these other sites do not immediately remove our images, we will have no choice but to sue them as well. We are committed to stopping this systematic infringement and holding the wrongdoers to account." Compass filed its antitrust lawsuit in June after months of back-and-forth between the two companies over Zillow's policy to ban private home listings. Essentially, the policy means that if a home seller or their agent markets a property off Zillow for more than one day, then that home cannot be listed on its platforms. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that "Zillow has sought to rely on anticompetitive tactics to protect its monopoly and revenues in violation of the antitrust laws." Zillow has denied having engaged in anticompetitive tactics, saying that the company has always stood for "transparency and equal access to information" while "Compass has been waging a campaign against market transparency to the detriment of consumers and agents." The practice of taking a home off Zillow and test prices elsewhere, Zillow said, makes the housing market less transparent. "Zillow's 'Zillow Ban' policy can force agents to play by their rules if they want visibility. This puts pressure on independent firms that use private listings or want to test pricing before going public," Keely Smith, the lead interior designer at JD Elite Interiors, told Newsweek. "It might seem like an agent problem, but when listings get funneled through a single pipeline, it narrows options for everyone. I've seen sellers struggle with fewer marketing avenues and buyers miss out on homes that don't show up on the first few pages of a Zillow search," she added. "It chips away at the flexibility and local knowledge that smaller brokerages bring to the table." While CoStar is asking for a permanent injunctive relief and "a substantial award of damages" that could reach up to $1 billion, Compass is asking for an injunction that would prohibit Zillow from implementing and enforcing its ban or similar policies. "The antitrust case asks whether platform rules have crossed the line from hard bargaining into unlawful maintenance of dominance," Ladah told Newsweek. "The copyright case asks whether the race to comprehensive inventory has led to sloppy or overbroad content ingestion." Legal Storm Hits America's Most Popular Real Estate Website Legal Storm Hits America's Most Popular Real Estate Website Newsweek Illustration/Canva/Getty What Does This Mean for the US Real Estate Market? If Compass prevails in its case, Zillow and other similar portals "may need to relax rules that penalize off-platform or delayed marketing," Ladah said. That, in turn, could increase the diversity of channels through which consumers find homes and reduce the gravitational pull of any single portal—chipping away at the power that Zillow has gained in the past couple of decades. A Compass' victory might also "erode the incentive for aggregators to invest in data quality and consumer tools if they cannot require prompt, comprehensive inclusion," Ladah added. "Courts often weigh those tradeoffs under the rule of reason, and remedies can be tailored, so a likely outcome is not a free-for-all but a narrowing of permanent exclusion coupled with clearer, less punitive compliance paths." If CoStar wins its case and establishes widespread, unlicensed use of its material by Zillow, "the result will be tighter provenance controls, more robust license audits, and possibly a re-pricing of photo rights across the ecosystem," Ladah said. "That would push portals and MLSs to adopt stronger hash-matching, metadata preservation, and takedown workflows, and it would push brokerages to obtain clean, written licenses from photographers that explicitly cover syndication to every endpoint where a listing may appear." While this is all very technical, these lawsuits could have a direct impact on homebuyers as well. A check on Zillow's dominance on the real estate market, Ladah said, "could surface more listings across a wider set of sites, which feels pro-consumer at first glance," but "the countervailing risk is fragmentation." "If agents feel freer to run staggered or private campaigns, or if portals reduce cross-syndication to mitigate copyright exposure, some homes may be harder to discover in one place," Ladah said. "The net outcome will depend on whether courts and the industry can maintain broad, near-real-time sharing while curbing exclusionary rules and tightening IP compliance." Home sellers, on the other hand, are currently often limited by policies that force immediate publication to a single platform. "If those policies soften, sellers and listing agents may regain leverage to calibrate visibility without risking permanent banishment from high-traffic sites," Ladah said. The outcomes of these two legal battles, Ladah explained, are likely to influence not only how Zillow operates, but also how the entire digital architecture of U.S. homebuying and renting is organized. "A win for Compass or CoStar would likely democratize access and strengthen IP compliance, with some risk of short-term fragmentation," he said. "A clean sweep for Zillow would entrench the current gatekeeper model and reward strict distribution discipline, which could preserve consistency and consumer familiarity at the possible expense of competition at the margins." Either way, Ladah said, the message for the market is the same. "Treat access rules and content rights as core legal infrastructure, not housekeeping. The next phase of real estate's digital era will be built on whichever of those two pillars the courts reinforce," he said.
UPI
2 days ago
- UPI
Musk's X: Britain's Internet safety law 'seriously infringes' free speech
"Many are now concerned that a plan ostensibly intended to keep children safe is at risk of seriously infringing on the public's right to free expression," the Global Government Affairs wing of the Elon Musk-owned X said Friday on Britain's newly-enacted Online Safety Act. Photo by Ismael Mohamad/ UPI | License Photo Aug. 1 (UPI) -- The Elon Musk-owned social media platform X said Friday that Britain's newly-enacted Online Safety Act "seriously" is on the cusp of violating free speech masked as the fight to protect kids from explicit online content. "Many are now concerned that a plan ostensibly intended to keep children safe is at risk of seriously infringing on the public's right to free expression," the Global Government affairs wing of the Bastrop, Texas-headquartered X said Friday. Britain's Online Safety Act created a new set of legal duties that tech companies must abide by. It mandated they evaluate the potential of users encountering illegal Internet content and children being exposed to online harm, which included a required safety assessment. "When lawmakers approved these measures, they made a conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of 'online safety,'" the letter stated. The British parliament passed it in September 2023 in the quest to improve online safety for young people. X argues the British people may not of been aware of the "trade-off" when London passed the bill. The OSA covers more than 130 offenses ranging from harassment and "assisting or encouraging suicide" to terrorism, fraud and "unlawful immigration." It targets tech entities that spans "social media or video-sharing platforms, messaging, gaming and dating apps, forums and file-sharing sites." According to the former Twitter, the act's "laudable intentions" were at risk of "being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach." "While everyone agrees protecting children is a critical responsibility, it is also clear that an overly rigorous statutory framework layered with a 'voluntary' code and heightened police monitoring, oversteps the intended mission," it continued. On Friday, a British watchdog group indicated that those fears may may be valid. "The BBC is now reporting that information about the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, UK rape gangs, and more is being censored online due to the government's new Online 'Safety' Act," Silkie Carlo, director of Britain-based Big Brother Watch, posted on X. "Well done lads," she added in jest. X's government affairs offiec says free speech will suffer without a "more balanced, collaborative approach." Pornhub and other major pornographic websites had a targeted end of July date to implement its age verification mechanisms in order to comply. Musk, 54, has characterized himself as a "free speech absolutist." The former White House DOGE adviser, for his part, has said the act's purpose was "suppression of the people" as he tweeted a petition calling for it's repeal that got more than 450,000 signatures. OSA's deadline required pornographic websites to implement "robust" age verification methods or face fines close to $20 million or equal to 10% of company proceeds. X cited British regulator Ofcom how it "to date" had allegedly taken a "heavy-handed approach" to enforcement, which it said included a boost in resources, additional "layers of bureaucratic oversight and signaling an aggressive approach to ensuring compliance." In a recent Ofcom research study, some 8% of children aged of 8 to 14 accessed a pornography source over a 28-day period. It included 19% boys and 11% of girls from 13 to 14 years old. In addition to the increased government regulations, X officials also cite Britain's new "National Internet Intelligence Investigations" team unit company officials say "sets off alarm bells" and will further "intensify scrutiny." The social media company said the Internet teams "sole" focus is to monitor social media for "signs of unrest, such as anti-immigrant sentiment, to prevent real-world violence." "While positioned as a safety measure, it clearly goes far beyond that intent," the post reads. "This move has set off alarm bells for free speech advocates who characterize it as excessive and potentially restrictive."
