Verdicts are actually nice addition to the box office and it's something Hollywood should have in mainstream though the economics of Hollywood movies is something which box office forums do talk about.
Problem in India is how the business work.
In Hollywood, a film is usually produced and distributed by same studio and the profit/loss is basically every revenue they get minus every cost. A nice simple math.
In Bollywood or India, the producers are usually different while distributor is another person. The films go through various middle-men i.e. Distributor, Sub Distributor and then Exhibitors. Now it is perfectly likely that a film is huge Blockbuster for Producer but huge Disaster for Distributor. That's where the problem arise. e.g. Tubelight. Salman Khan spend around ₹80cr on making Tubelight and another ₹20cr on releasing it. The film recovered its entire cost from Satellite and Digital itself. The huge ₹190cr from Theatrical rights was plain profit. Salman made a huge ₹225cr plus Table profit from the film but the Distributor of the film lost ₹120cr from the film. What should be the verdict of the film?
In Hollywood, people would consider it a HIT, if there was no middle man, Salman Khan as producer would still made ₹100cr profit if he had himself distributed film but in India and especially trade the verdict is usually what Distributor made money or not.
BOI has tried to change this in last few years and that's where confusions started. If BOI follow the producer made money thing, many past FLOPs will be HIT now and they aren't that lenient on every film, with them getting back to basic of whether film made money theatrically thing on smaller films like Thappad. So confusion hi confusion hai.
Ideally a film has 3 parties and all 3 could have different verdicts. IMO for the theatrical verdict, For a HIT film, Exhibitor should always have a HIT business, which is when a film has good run or good occupancies and either one of Distributor or Producer should make profit.