Shares of IIFL Finance fell 17.9% on Thursday to touch an intraday low of Rs 511.15 on the NSE despite strong Q3 earnings, where the company reported an 11X jump in net profit. While the exact reason for the fall is not known yet, ET Now reported the company received 3 orders from the GST department totalling Rs 13.2 crore.
The fall was quick amid significant volumes, with over 1.4 crore shares changing hands on the NSE around 3 PM. The stock ended the day at Rs 528.25 apiece on the NSE, down by 15.19% from the previous close.
The company today reported a consolidated net profit of Rs 464 crore for the quarter ended December 31, 2025, which was up 1,041% from Rs 41 crore reported in the year ago period. The profit after tax (PAT) was up 23% on a sequential basis compared to Rs 376 crore reported in Q2FY26. All profit figures are attributable to the owners of the company.
Total revenue from operations in Q3FY26 stood at Rs 3,427.45 crore, up 40% from Rs 2,443 crore in the year ago period. The topline grew 4% on a sequential basis.
The company also announced an interim dividend of Rs 4 per share, and the board has fixed Thursday, January 29, 2026, as the record date.
IIFL Finance’s consolidated assets under management (AUM) rose 9% QoQ to Rs 98,336 crore, reflecting steady growth driven by strong growth momentum in the gold loans business.
The home loans AUM grew 5% YoY to Rs 31,893 crore but de-grew 0.4% QoQ. The business is steady and on track to deliver as per plan, the company’s filing said. Gold loans AUM surged 189% YoY and 26% QoQ to Rs 43,432 crore, demonstrating a strong momentum supported by healthy tonnage growth and stable asset quality.
The MSME loans AUM grew 17% YoY and 4% QoQ to Rs 10,081 crore, owing to strategic recalibration towards low-risk secured lending and pullback from unsecured lending.
The microfinance AUM stood at Rs 8,360 crore, down 19% YoY and flat QoQ, impacted by macroeconomic pressures in unsecured lending.
(Disclaimer: The recommendations, suggestions, views, and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times.)
