Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Fixed Asset Commitments At June 30, 2018, the Company has committed to spend approximately $5,668 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 or 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 ExlService Philippines, Inc. 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 a 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 primarily related to its transfer pricing issues for years ranging from tax years 2003 to 2014 and its permanent establishment issues ranging from tax years 2003 to 2007 as of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017 is $17,370 and $18,065, respectively, of which the Company has made payments or provided bank guarantee to the extent $8,324 and $8,573, respectively. Amounts paid as deposits in respect of such assessments aggregating to $6,389 and $6,499 as of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively, are included in “Other assets” and amounts for bank guarantees aggregating to $1,935 and $2,074 as of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively, are included in “Restricted cash” in the non-current assets section of the Company’s consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017. Based on the facts underlying the Company’s position and its experience with these types of assessments, the Company believes that its position will more likely than not be sustained upon final examination by the tax authorities based on its technical merits as of the reporting date 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. In March 2017, the Company was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in California, which included several causes of action seeking damages but did not include a monetary demand. The Company filed its answer in April 2017 vigorously denying the allegations. Both parties agreed to participate in a court-approved mediation which occurred in March 2018. The parties reached an agreement in principle whereby the Company, without any admission of wrongdoing or liability, would pay $2,400 to settle the litigation, which amount has been accrued under “General and administrative expenses” for the six months ended June 30, 2018. The agreement remains subject to final court approval, which is expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2018 although there can be no guarantee as to approval or timing.

Commitments and Contingencies

Fixed Asset Commitments

At June 30, 2018, the Company has committed to spend approximately $5,668 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 or 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 ExlService Philippines, Inc. 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 a 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 primarily related to its transfer pricing issues for years ranging from tax years 2003 to 2014 and its permanent establishment issues ranging from tax years 2003 to 2007 as of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017 is $17,370 and $18,065, respectively, of which the Company has made payments or provided bank guarantee to the extent $8,324 and $8,573, respectively. Amounts paid as deposits in respect of such assessments aggregating to $6,389 and $6,499 as of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively, are included in “Other assets” and amounts for bank guarantees aggregating to $1,935 and $2,074 as of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively, are included in “Restricted cash” in the non-current assets section of the Company’s consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017.

Based on the facts underlying the Company’s position and its experience with these types of assessments, the Company believes that its position will more likely than not be sustained upon final examination by the tax authorities based on its technical merits as of the reporting date 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.

In March 2017, the Company was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in California, which included several causes of action seeking damages but did not include a monetary demand. The Company filed its answer in April 2017 vigorously denying the allegations. Both parties agreed to participate in a court-approved mediation which occurred in March 2018. The parties reached an agreement in principle whereby the Company, without any admission of wrongdoing or liability, would pay $2,400 to settle the litigation, which amount has been accrued under “General and administrative expenses” for the six months ended June 30, 2018. The agreement remains subject to final court approval, which is expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2018 although there can be no guarantee as to approval or timing.