← All Phrases

“Section 142(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 142Section 142(1)15,051 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 142(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 142(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

Judgments citing Section 142(1)

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3474/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Sanman Trade Impex Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3470/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 16, Delhi vs. Umrao Hotels and Resorts Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3045/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. Nos. 2867 /Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Umrao Hotels & Resorts Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., The Umrao, Nh- Central Circle – 16 48, Vill Samalkha, Near Delhi Rajori Crossing, New Delhi – 110037 Pan: Aaacu 6777 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & I.T.A. Nos. 3045/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Dcit Vs. Umrao Hotels & Resorts Central Circle – 16 Pvt. Ltd., The Umrao, Nh- Delhi-110055 48, Vill Samalkha, Near Rajori Crossing, New Delhi - 110037 Pan: Aaacu 6777 D

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

under Section 153C of the Act. Further that, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 25.06.2021 followed by notice under Section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was served upon the assessee and upon perusal of the objection raised by the assessee, the assessment was finalized ... Relying upon these three documents, we have considered the submissions made by the Learned AR that the notice dated 23.02.2021 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act appearing at Page 98 of the paper book filed before us was only after the objection raised by the assessee dated

Umrao Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2867/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. Nos. 2867 /Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Umrao Hotels & Resorts Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., The Umrao, Nh- Central Circle – 16 48, Vill Samalkha, Near Delhi Rajori Crossing, New Delhi – 110037 Pan: Aaacu 6777 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & I.T.A. Nos. 3045/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Dcit Vs. Umrao Hotels & Resorts Central Circle – 16 Pvt. Ltd., The Umrao, Nh- Delhi-110055 48, Vill Samalkha, Near Rajori Crossing, New Delhi - 110037 Pan: Aaacu 6777 D

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

under Section 153C of the Act. Further that, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 25.06.2021 followed by notice under Section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was served upon the assessee and upon perusal of the objection raised by the assessee, the assessment was finalized ... Relying upon these three documents, we have considered the submissions made by the Learned AR that the notice dated 23.02.2021 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act appearing at Page 98 of the paper book filed before us was only after the objection raised by the assessee dated

ACIT, Central Circle, Meerut vs. Mohd. Zahid Siddiqui, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 25/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 25/Del/2023 (A.Y 2019-20) Acit Mohd. Zahid Siddiqui 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Vs. 246, Lane No. 4, Haiderpur Office, Opposite Bainsali Road, Shalimar Bagh, Ground, Meerut, New Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pan No. Abopz6005F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Vaibhav Goel, Ca Department By: Sh. Anshul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Vaibhav Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69A

1 ACIT Vs. Mohd. Zahid Siddiqui IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. PRADIP

Valaka Engineering Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16 (Now CC-20), Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 183/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: or at the time of hearing.”

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI G.S.PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR

DCIT, CC-20, New Delhi vs. Valaka Engineering Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 1087/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: or at the time of hearing.”

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI G.S.PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR

Aaravi Developers, Ahmedabad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 659/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.659/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Aaravi Developers The Pr.Cit-3 बनाम/ A-312, Siddhi Vinayak Tower Ahmedabad B/H. Divya Bhaskar V/S. S.G. Highway, Makarba Ahmedabad – 380 051 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abdfa 5385 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16-03-2024 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit” In Short) In Exercise Of The Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” In Short) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. Aaravi Developers Vs. The Pr.Cit Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ “सी“, अहमदाबाद

Health Foundation & Research Centre, Dahod vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Exemption, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 516/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.516/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Health Foundation & The Acit बनाम/ Research Centre Circle-2 (Exemption) Gf Post Box No.156 Ahmedabad-380 015 V/S. Sheth Shri Girdharlal Marg Raliyati Road, Dahold – 389 151 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaath 0867 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 08/05/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 19/12/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Health Foundation & Research Centre Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 13(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ “सी“, अहमदाबाद

J vs. Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vadodaravs.the Pr. CIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 411/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43Section 49

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT

Sunita Mohan Patil, Nashik vs. ACIT 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 939/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Tripathi
Section 5

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY

Ramrao Tukaram Patil, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 736/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.736/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY

Vikrant Rajendra Bidkar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(5), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 708/PUN/2024[A.Y.2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.708/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY

Prem Prasad, Malda vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Malda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 12/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Bhoomeeth Commosales(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 977/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 14A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'ए' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल

Rajat Bhandari, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-62(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1332/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1332/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajat Bhandari..….…………………..……………………....………....Appellant 10B, Paramount, 25, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata -700019. [Pan: Afupb9602E] Vs. Ito, Ward-62(3), Kolkata….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishak Bansal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.24,19,646/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Miscellaneous Expenditure Claimed By The Assessee In The Return Of Income. 3. The Assessing Officer Disallowed The Aforesaid Amount On Account Of Miscellaneous Expenditure Observing That The Assessee Had Failed To

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘ए’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri

Sh. Moti Lal Jain, Alwar vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

ITA 645/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI

M/S. the Bharathi Co-Operative Credit Society, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1171/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 18Section 234Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

ITA No.1171/Bang/2023 M/s. The Bharathi Co-operative Credit Society, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE

Sadhana Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Palghar vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 55/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Unmesh J NarvekarFor Respondent: ShriDr. Kishore Dhule - CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(C)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

only reflected in the return of income but also gone into specifically as can be seen from the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act where by the details of various deductions and exemptions along with documentary evidence had been sought for by the A.O., which finally

Shri Jain Udyog Gruha, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

In the result, the appeal filed by the appeal is allowed

ITA 2702/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhrishri Jain Udyog Gruha Vs. Ito(Exemp). Ward 2(3), 109-117, Piramal Chamber, C.P. Tank Road, Lalbaug, Near Madhavabag, Mumbai-400012. C.P Tank, Mumbai-400004. Pan/Gir No. Aabts9375B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H”SMC”BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI