$((p\to q) \land (q \to p)) \to (p \leftrightarrow q)$ is tautology
I prove this by using proof by contradiction:
So I defined A = [(p $\implies$ q) $\land$ (q $\implies$ p)] and B = (p $\iff$ q) , and that will be A $\implies$ B. For this to happen A needs to be T and B needs to be F.
Therefore, I went with my cases:
Case I: If p is T and q is F; A = F and B is F $\therefore$ A $\implies$ B is T
Case II: If p is F and q is T; A = F and B is F $\therefore$ A $\implies$ B is T
Case III: If p and q are the same; A = F (If p and q are both F) and B = T $\therefore$ A $\implies$ B is T; or A = T (If p and q are both T) and B = T $\therefore$ A $\implies$ B is T.
By the proof of contradiction this is invalid therefore is tautology.
Then I got curious and tried to prove. this by using this rules only and failed completely, how can this be done by using this rules?:



You can employ the equivalence from table 8, rule 1 to transform it into a tautology with the addition of meta-logical laws:
$\begin{align} & \quad \ p \leftrightarrow q \equiv (p \to q) \land (q \to p) \quad & \text{(table 8 rule 1)} \\ & \rightsquigarrow p \leftrightarrow q \vDash (p \to q) \land (q \to p) \ \text{ and }\ (p \to q) \land (q \to p) \vDash (p \leftrightarrow q) \quad & \text{(def. } \equiv \text{)}\\ & \rightsquigarrow (p \to q) \land (q \to p) \vDash (p \leftrightarrow q) \quad & \text{(simplification)}\\ & \rightsquigarrow\ \! \vDash ((p \to q) \land (q \to p)) \to (p \leftrightarrow q) \quad & \text{(import-export theorem)} \end{align}$
where "$\vDash$" means logical consequence/tautologicity.