Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	15. Commitments and Contingencies *Fixed Asset Commitments* As of September 30, 2014, the Company had committed to spend approximately $6,840 under agreements to purchase fixed assets. This amount is net of capital advances paid in respect of these purchases. *Other Commitments* Certain units of the Company’s Indian subsidiaries were established as 100% Export-Oriented units under the Software Technology Parks of India (“STPI”) scheme promulgated by the Government of India. These units are exempt from customs, central excise duties, and levies on imported and indigenous capital goods, stores, and spares. The Company has undertaken to pay custom duties, service taxes, levies, and liquidated damages payable, if any, in respect of imported and indigenous capital goods, stores, and spares consumed duty free, in the event that certain terms and conditions are not fulfilled. The Company’s management believes, however, that these units have in the past satisfied and will continue to satisfy the required conditions. The Company’s operations centers in the Philippines are registered with the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (“PEZA”). The registration provides the Company with certain fiscal incentives on the import of capital goods and requires Exl Philippines to meet certain performance and investment criteria. The Company’s management believes that these centers have in the past satisfied and will continue to satisfy the required criteria. *Contingencies* U.S. and Indian transfer pricing regulations require that any international transaction involving associated enterprises be at an arm’s-length price. Accordingly, the Company determines the appropriate pricing for the international transactions among its associated enterprises on the basis of a detailed functional and economic analysis involving benchmarking against transactions among entities that are not under common control. The tax authorities have jurisdiction to review this arrangement and in the event that they determine that the transfer price applied was not appropriate, the Company may incur increased tax liability, including accrued interest and penalties. The Company is currently involved in disputes with the Indian tax authorities over the application of some of its transfer pricing policies for some of its subsidiaries. Further, the Company and its U.S. subsidiary are engaged in tax litigation with the income-tax authorities in India on the issue of permanent establishment. The aggregate disputed amount demanded by Indian tax authorities from the Company related to its transfer pricing issues for various years ranging from tax years 2003 to 2010 and its permanent establishment issues ranging from tax years 2003 to 2007 as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 is $18,015 and $14,742, respectively, of which the Company has already made payments or provided bank guarantees to the extent of $14,970 and $13,797, respectively. Amounts paid as deposits in respect of such assessments aggregating to $12,825 and $11,653 as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, are included in “Other assets” and amounts deposited for bank guarantees aggregating to $2,145 and $2,144 as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, are included in “Restricted cash” in the non-current assets section of the Company’s consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013. Based on advice from its Indian tax advisors, the facts underlying the Company’s position and its experience with these types of assessments, the Company believes that the probability that it will ultimately be found liable for these assessments is remote and accordingly has not accrued any amount with respect to these matters in its consolidated financial statements. The Company does not expect any impact from these assessments on its future income tax expense. It is possible that the Company might receive similar orders or assessments from tax authorities for subsequent years. Accordingly even if these disputes are resolved, the Indian tax authorities may still serve additional orders or assessments.

15. Commitments and Contingencies

Fixed Asset Commitments

As of September 30, 2014, the Company had committed to spend approximately $6,840 under agreements to purchase fixed assets. This amount is net of capital advances paid in respect of these purchases.

Other Commitments

Certain units of the Company’s Indian subsidiaries were established as 100% Export-Oriented units under the Software Technology Parks of India (“STPI”) scheme promulgated by the Government of India. These units are exempt from customs, central excise duties, and levies on imported and indigenous capital goods, stores, and spares. The Company has undertaken to pay custom duties, service taxes, levies, and liquidated damages payable, if any, in respect of imported and indigenous capital goods, stores, and spares consumed duty free, in the event that certain terms and conditions are not fulfilled. The Company’s management believes, however, that these units have in the past satisfied and will continue to satisfy the required conditions.

The Company’s operations centers in the Philippines are registered with the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (“PEZA”). The registration provides the Company with certain fiscal incentives on the import of capital goods and requires Exl Philippines to meet certain performance and investment criteria. The Company’s management believes that these centers have in the past satisfied and will continue to satisfy the required criteria.

Contingencies

U.S. and Indian transfer pricing regulations require that any international transaction involving associated enterprises be at an arm’s-length price. Accordingly, the Company determines the appropriate pricing for the international transactions among its associated enterprises on the basis of a detailed functional and economic analysis involving benchmarking against transactions among entities that are not under common control. The tax authorities have jurisdiction to review this arrangement and in the event that they determine that the transfer price applied was not appropriate, the Company may incur increased tax liability, including accrued interest and penalties. The Company is currently involved in disputes with the Indian tax authorities over the application of some of its transfer pricing policies for some of its subsidiaries. Further, the Company and its U.S. subsidiary are engaged in tax litigation with the income-tax authorities in India on the issue of permanent establishment.

The aggregate disputed amount demanded by Indian tax authorities from the Company related to its transfer pricing issues for various years ranging from tax years 2003 to 2010 and its permanent establishment issues ranging from tax years 2003 to 2007 as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 is $18,015 and $14,742, respectively, of which the Company has already made payments or provided bank guarantees to the extent of $14,970 and $13,797, respectively. Amounts paid as deposits in respect of such assessments aggregating to $12,825 and $11,653 as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, are included in “Other assets” and amounts deposited for bank guarantees aggregating to $2,145 and $2,144 as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, are included in “Restricted cash” in the non-current assets section of the Company’s consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013.

Based on advice from its Indian tax advisors, the facts underlying the Company’s position and its experience with these types of assessments, the Company believes that the probability that it will ultimately be found liable for these assessments is remote and accordingly has not accrued any amount with respect to these matters in its consolidated financial statements. The Company does not expect any impact from these assessments on its future income tax expense. It is possible that the Company might receive similar orders or assessments from tax authorities for subsequent years. Accordingly even if these disputes are resolved, the Indian tax authorities may still serve additional orders or assessments.