No evidence has emerged of Indian sources even knowing about Alexander, let alone chronicling it in any amount of detail.
According to S N Sen in his Ancient Indian History and Civilisation (pp 127), Alexander's direct influence on India and Indian culture was imperceptible, but his successor satraps (who were definitely chronicled by Indian sources) had a lasting and stronger impact.
This does not mean that Greeks weren't referred to by Indian sources, as they were referred to quite a bit, including by far southern states like the Pandyan Empire who had faced Greek mercenaries in their wars against the Chalukyas and had immense respect for the "Yavanas" and are mentioned in Sangam Literature.
The earliest, detailed reference to be made to Greek Kingdoms is in Ashokan rock edicts (circa 290 BCE), where Ashoka lists both his own peoples (Yavana's) living within his borders as well as those Greek kingdoms to which he had sent emissaries to.
Aside from this, the Indian epics (Mahabarata as well as the Ramayana) reference the Yavana Kingdoms (they fought alongside the bad guys in the Mahabaratha fwiw).
It is Buddhist and Tamil sources that talk about Greek culture and societies, with the Pattinappalai going into fair detail on these.
I know I exceeded the brief of the question, but such topics are rarely asked in this sub, and felt it would be good to do an info dump.
Edited to add - It is important to understand WHY Alexander does not get a mention in the main Indian sources. His invasion was a fringe kingdom in the far North Western reaches of the Indian empire of Nalanda. Porus himself was more of a tribal chieftain belonging to the Paurava tribe / clan and less of a king of a settled kingdom.
As far as Nalanda and other Indian empires to the south of the Nalandans, geographically the Indus was in an extreme corner, and considering that Alexander did not press onward (and thus come to the attention of the Nalandans), it must have barely registered on these much larger, empires.
Not fully related to Alexanders presence in India but: There are several really interesting things one could look at when talking about the Greco-Indian culture. Personally what I was really surprised by while visiting museums during my travels in India was the way hellenistic (the ancient greek/macedonian civilization that preceded the roman empire) culture changed religious symbols in the sub-continent to be more human-like. The jist of it is that the Buddha, before the hellenistic influence was not manifested in human pictures such as sculptures or portraits, but more as a aniconic representations of Buddha.
This is an interesting source on the matter https://www.academia.edu/5974580/When_the_Greeks_Converted_the_Buddha_Asymmetrical_Transfers_of_Knowledge_in_Indo-Greek_Cultures
Disclaimer: I am in no means an expert on the field, merely a hobby historian. If there's anyone with better sources/conflicting sources I am looking forward to reading more about it, and I chose to post in this thread due to there being no responses.
Not an Indian source, but my favorite legend regarding Alexander in India. Plutarch, in Life of Alexander, states that Alexander, during this conquest of India, met with a young Chandragupta Maurya (referred to by Greek name of Androcottus). Maurya claimed that Alexander could have conquered the whole of India because the current rulers (Nanda Empire) were so unpopular, but Alexander had to turn back to appease his troops. Maurya then went on to establish his own empire that would conquer the eastern most satrapies of the successive Seleucid Empire.