I had always read that Alexander’s eastward march was uniformly successful, and he only stopped at the Ganges because his men refused to go any further East. A quick scan of ye olde internet this evening backs up my childhood education, but a friend of mine has an alternative position. He insists that this is a highly euro-centric interpretation of events, and in fact Alexander lost on the battlefield in India, or was at least sufficiently weakened that he could not progress further. Since my googling only yielded results which support my own bias, I thought it might be interesting to ask here for a more grounded perspective on events.
I discuss the 'mutiny' (or otherwise) at the Hyphasis River in this past answer. As ever, there are multiple contradictory versions that are equally, or at least comparably, legitimate.
That said, to quickly address the more specific wording of your question I think the answer is to say that both perspectives are, in some sense, correct. On the one hand, Alexander did not suffer any battlefield defeats in India. But on the other, there is broad concurrence in the sources that by 326 BCE, the Macedonian army had suffered heavy material attrition and was deeply demoralised. While that is far from being the same as having 'lost on the battlefield', which would imply some covered-up tactical disaster, it would be correct to say that the army was 'sufficiently weakened that he [Alexander] could not progress further'.