I think students are so used to "plugging the value of $x$" to calculate limits that they forget the fundamental aspect that a limit of a function is not necessarily a value of the function but it is related to the values of a function.
The definition of limit does not give any method to evaluate limits, rather it gives us a mechanism to check (at least theoretically) whether a given number is (or is not) the limit of a function. However the definition is sufficient to evaluate the following simple limits: $$\lim_{x \to a}k = k,\,\lim_{x \to a}x = a,\,\lim_{x \to \infty}\frac{1}{x} = 0\tag{1}$$ Then the usual route to evaluation of limits is not through plugging the value of $x$, but using algebra of limits.
The theorems which come under algebra of limits explicitly mention the conditions under which they can be used effectively. The most imposing limitations of these rules are the following:
1) limit of sub-expressions must exist (by that we mean that it is a finite number).
2) limit of an expression occurring in denominator is non-zero.
Normally the textbook / exam questions are designed in such manner that the rules of algebra of limits can't be used directly (because of the above limitations). Then we are given some more tools to help us in evaluating limits:
1) Squeeze theorem: If $g(x)\leq f(x)\leq h(x)$ in a deleted neighborhood of $a$ and $\lim_{x \to a}g(x) = \lim_{x \to a}h(x) = L$ then $\lim_{x \to a}f(x) = L$.
2) The Standard Limits:
$$\lim_{x \to 0}\frac{\sin x}{x} = \lim_{x \to 0}\frac{e^{x} - 1}{x} = \lim_{x \to 0}\frac{\log(1 + x)}{x} = 1,\,\lim_{x \to a}\frac{x^{n} - a^{n}}{x - a} = na^{n - 1}\tag{2}$$
3) The expression can be manipulated using algebraical/trigonometrical identities (or identities pertaining to specific functions involved in the expression) under the assumption that $x \neq a$ (when we are evaluating the limit as $x \to a$).
The goal here to transform the expression in such a form where we can make use of rules of "algebra of limits", the simple limits of equation $(1)$ and "the standard limits" mentioned in equation $(2)$. Note that these transformations are based on identities so that new expression is equal to the old expression (just like $1 = 2/2$). Also note that when we evaluate a limit as $x \to a$ we are totally ignorant of what happens when $x = a$ so all the transformations are performed with assumption that $x \neq a$.
In the current question if we apply the "rules of algebra of limits" we face the limitation of zero denominator. Hence we need to "transform the expression" in a manner so that the zero denominator is avoided and it is possible to make use of the standard limits. This is what you have done when you have divided numerator and denominator of the given expression by $x$.
This clearly gets rid of zero denominator and also gives the expression $(\sin x)/x$ so that we can make use of standard limits. However there is also the term $\cos x$ in numerator. The limit of this term is not evaluated by plugging $x = 0$ but rather it is evaluated by using the following result $$\lim_{x \to a}\cos x = \cos a\tag{3}$$ which can be proven using the standard limit $(\sin x)/x \to 1$ as $x \to 0$. So there are some nice functions like $\cos x$ for which the limit can be really evaluated by plugging. Such functions are called continuous functions and most of the usual functions in calculus are continuous at points where they are defined. This justifies the "plugging".
However a student learning calculus must understand very clearly that plugging does not work by default in evaluation of limits, but rather depends on certain functions being continuous. And one must understand the proof that usual functions in calculus are continuous (these proofs are based on standard limits in $(2)$).
BTW your statement about "infinitely small" is "nothing". You need to understand that there is no real number which is infinitely small (or infinitely large). These terms are coming from an era when there was no sound theory of calculus. At least in the current century we have a sound theory of calculus and it is better to treat such phrases as non-sensical and not waste time on them.
Are you telling me that the limit should not be the same if you manipulate an expression using legal operations?
– user262493 Aug 16 '15 at 20:41But what I don't get, is why the same expression evaluated after different manipulations yields a different limit.
If I were to evaluate it without manipulating it first, I wouldn't get any meaningful correct? It would be as close to undefined as an expression can be.
However, if I manipulate it it suddenly gives me another value?
– user262493 Aug 16 '15 at 20:49