IOTL, the British East India Company ruled over literally all of India at its peak in the name of commercial interests. It achieved much wealth, though it went bankrupt many times. It was, overall, successful in its goals. However, as a result of a series of cultural misunderstandings, in 1857, sepoys revolted, resulting in a massive revolt as rulers allied with them. The Indian Mutiny (which makes one of the largest revolts in Indian history sound like a few drugged-up soldiers killing their superiors, but I digress) finally led to its nationalization by Britain, and the British Raj was declared.
Could the BEIC have potentially become independent of Britain, as a corporate state? Perhaps the two biggest features working against independence were the constant bankruptcy of the Company and the loyalty of the Company to British money. Avoiding the first requires better management, which should be doable. The second is much harder. All I can think of is Britain becoming a republic and numerous shareholders deciding not to be loyal to the new republic and continuing to recognize the monarch in exile in Hanover as their ruler. Effectively, ideology supersedes money. I imagine many rulers will take this opportunity to break away, but the east and south should still be fairly solidly in Company hands, especially with offers of expanded realms to rulers, some of the company's profits being theirs, and a looser grip by the Company.