Assessee (Indian Co.) paid dividend to its shareholders in France and sought to pay DDT at the lower rate prescribed under India-France DTAA by relying upon Delhi and Kolkata Bench rulings in Giesecke & Devrient and Indian Oil Petronas. ITAT admitted the cross-objection filed by the Taxpayer and thereafter, expressed doubt on the correctness of the decisions given by co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal such as,(i) DDT should be considered as a tax on the company and not shareholders, hence treaty protection for resident company not available in the absence of a specific provision (ii) The treaty protection thus sought goes well beyond the purpose of the tax treaties.(iii) Where intended, tax treaty provisions specifically provide for treaty application to taxes like DDT (iii) DTAA is a self-imposed limitation on states’ inherent right to tax and “Inherent in the self-imposed restrictions imposed by the DTAA is the fact that outside of the limitations imposed by the DTAA, the State is free to levy taxes as per its own policy choices”, arose in respect of DDT rate applicable in hands of shareholders. Thus, ITAT frames the question “Whether the protection granted by the tax treaties, under section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of taxation of dividend in the source jurisdiction, can be extended, even in the absence of a specific treaty provision to that effect, to the dividend distribution tax under section 115-O in the hands of a domestic company?” for approval of the ITAT President for the constitution of a special bench of three or more members. (AY. 2016 17)