There is an uncomfortable question about whether any of the colonies were ever "profitable".

On first glance the calculation seems to be: (money extracted) - (cost of occupation). If that is positive, then the colony is "profitable".

But back in 1816 Ricardo that trade was more profitable than previously believed. Even if Brits were better than Indians at everything, there is still scope for mutually beneficial trade, based on comparative advantage. So there is no need for occupying a colony at all. Just split the gains from trade fairly and the other folk will trade voluntarily, just to get their share of the gains from trade.

So the criterion for a colony being profitable is actually

(money extracted) - (cost of occupation) > (fair share of profit from free trade)

That is not an easy test to pass. Once you start trying to extract more money, to meet the test, the natives rebel and the cost of occupation soars.